Washington, D. C. The committee met, at 10 a. m., in the Finance Committee room, Harrison (chairman) presiding. Senate Office Building, Senator The CHAIRMAN. The witness this morning is Mr. Herbert Benjamin of New York. STATEMENT OF HERBERT BENJAMIN, NEW YORK CITY, REPRE­ SENTING THE NATIONAL JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE FOR GENUINE SOCIAL INSURANCE Mr. BENJAMIN. I am appearing in behalf of the National Joint Action Committee for Genuine Social Insurance. It is my purpose to show that there is not only a need but an organized broad mass movement for genuine social insurance. That the Wagner-Lewis so-called “social security bill represents the administration’s attempt to evade the obligation to provide such insurance. That the immedi­ ate and potential resources of the Nation make the provision of genu­ ine social insurance feasible and practicable. And, that a genuine social insurance system must base’ itself on the principles of the work­ ers’ unemployment, old age, and social insurance bill which is now before Congress as H. R. 2827. With your permission, I will file for the record a complete list of the organizations groups in whose behalf we are privileged to speak with relation to the problem of unemployment and social insurance. Examination will show that this list includes several thousand of national, State, regional, and local units of a great variety ‘of trade union, fraternal, farmers, professional, veterans, Negro, ‘youth, women, political, cultural, civic, and other organiza­ tions. The one list includes a good many, though not all of the organizations, who, after a consideration of various social insurance measures, endorsed the workers’ unemployment, old age, and social insurance bill as against all others. The second list enumerates the various organizations whose delegates participated in the national Congress for unemployment and social insurance which was held in Washington, C., on January 6, and 7 of this year. The National Joint Action Committee and its officers were elected in this Congress which unanimously rejected all such measures as the Wagner-Lewis bill and with equal unanimity endorsed H. R. 2827, the workers unemployment, old-age, and social insurance bill. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the Lundeen bill?



B ENJAMIN . Yes sir. And with your permission, I may file for the record the list of organizations. The C HAIRMAN . Yes. BENJAMIN. When it is remembered that these endorsements were secured and this support rallied in the face of very bitter and vigorous opposition, and despite the many differences of policy and opinion which prevails as between the listed organizations on a great variety of other problems, the significance of this wide-spread support for the workers’ bill can be more fully appreciated. This broad supporting movement for the workers’ bill is proof of the fact the great masses of producers are rapidly realizing that their very of existence depends upon the establishment of a genuine sys unemployment and social insurance. It serves also to prove that as the masses become aware of this need they develop a capacity for the united action which is necessary in order to compel enactment of such a system of social insurance. It is in behalf of the millions already associated, with our united movement and in behalf of all who from and are menaced by the effects of economic insecurity, that I appear before this com­ mittee. It is the sentiment and point of view of these millions that I express when I declare that we regard the Wagner-Lewis so-called social-security bill as not merely inadequate, but deliberately deceptive. For years our every demand that the Government shall assume the obligation of providing unemployment and social insurance for those who are deprived of their means of livelihood through no fault of their own, has been met by a flat “No.” The Wagner-Lewis bill is just another way of repeating that “No.” Through the Lewis bill, the Roosevelt administration declares just as the Hoover administration used to declare, that government as now constituted’ must concern itself with preserving the profits of a few rather than with preservation of the well-being of the overwhelming majority of the population. Because we hold that the Government should serve the millions of willing workers, ’ farmers, * and professionals -of this country and not merely the 3 percent who now control the wealth of this country, we are fundamentally opposed to the. intent and provisions of the Wagner-Lewis social-security bill. It is sufficient to compare the provisions of this bill to the ‘professed of its how entirelv divorced from the actual needs of the great masses who suffer hunger, want, and destitution in consequence of economic hazards that are inherent present (capitalist) productive system. In his various speeches and messages, President Roosevelt has more or less correctly formulated what should be the purpose of a social insurance or social security measure. In his message to Congress on June 8, 1934, he stated this most clearly when he declared that “the security of the home, the security of livelihood, and the security of social insurance are, it seems to me, a minimum of the promise that we can offer to the American people.” In the light of the admin­ program we well ask istrations proposed social security whether the President was merely advising his party colleagues on the kind of preelection promises they should make. Certainly the program submitted will not by any stretch of the imagination provide security of home, livelihood, and social insurance.



When the masses demand social insurance they mean: First, assured income in an amount that will preserve living standards. Preferably the masses would have steady work for which they are fitted at a wage rate that will make possible the purchase of all necessities of life. But the present system of production for profit rather than for use serves to deprive millions of the opportunity to work and thereby subjects all workers to the menace of unemployment. Despite the fact that President Roosevelt chooses to “stand or fall by my refusal to accept mass unemployment as a permanent con­ dition of our future”, it is generally admitted that under the present system we are bound to have a permanent army of some unemployed. This condition proceeds from the increasing dispro­ portion between our expanding productive capacities and shrinking purchasing power. We will submit figures based on recent findings of the National Industrial Conference Board that graphically describe this process. These figures show that in October payrolls stood at 60 percent, employment at 78.6 percent, and output per man-hour at 129.5 percent as compared to the average. This means that for the sampling industries covered in the given survey, 61 workers are able to now produce as much as 100 did 10 years ago. Thus 39 percent are left unemployed or forced to seek employment in new occupations. Under such conditions, the share of wealth which goes to the wage and salaried group who constitute the chief consumer group is con­ stantly reduced. This serves to shrink the market at the very moment when productive capacity is increased. This very process also militates against the possibility for the masses in the low income group to accumulate some reserves for emergencies such as accident, sickness, old age! and so forth, likewise the life destroying speed-up which accompanies the constant intensification of the labor process, results in prematurely aging the workers and in the exclusion of the middle aged as well as those of advanced years from industry. Finally, it must be borne in mind when designing a social-insurance program at this time, that all of these factors make for more prolonged and more frequent crises. It is a fallacy that amounts to actual deception to propose under such circumstances plans based on the accumulation of reserves. As a matter of fact, a recent study that since this country has suffered year for every years of‘ prosperity. Under such conditions it is manifestly im­ possible to meet the problem of unemployment by building up reserves during so-called “fat years” for the lean years. Certainly it cannot be done on the basis of tax on pay rolls. This is the fundamental error of the Wagner-Lewis bill. And because it must be evident that no insurance against loss of income through unemployment can be provided by means of a reserve plan, we cannot regard these plans as mere errors of judgment. They must be recognized for what they are-deliberate attempts to deceive the masses and circumvent their demand for assured income. As against these reserve plans, we propose and demand a system of unemployment and insurance that draws funds not by taxing either directly or indirectly the meager wage income of the masses, but by taxing the huge, petrified income and wealth of the rich. We call your attention to the fact that the’ Government did not the



big corporations to build up a reserve fund before it would issue billions of dollars to these from the Reconstruction Finance tion. The Government drew upon the already available resources for that purpose. We demand that the Government shall do likewise for the masses who have produced this Nation’s wealth. Are there such resources ? Could adequate funds be raised to pay ’ for genuine social insurance. Our answer is both factual as well as rho We know that this is the richest country in the world. We know that if millions suffer hunger and want as they do, it is not because they are unwilling to apply their labor to the task of creating all that is necessary and can be created to provide the necessities and comforts of life. Recently, however, we have also undertaken, with the help of com­ petent economists, studies of immediately sources of funds for adequate social insurance. Under the direction of Dr. Joseph chairman of the research committee of the Inter-professional Association for Social Insurance, such a study produced the following ‘findings: First, if, in accordance with the provisions of the workers’ bill, all incomes of a year and over were tased at the same rate as now prevails England, the Federsl Government would increase its revenue from source alone by more than five times. Thus, in 1928, billion dollars could have been raised in this manner instead of the slightly more than one billion which was actually obtained. It should be pointed out in this connection that the rates of taxation in France and Germany are even higher in some brackets. Secondly, corporation taxes in the Uuited States are likewise ex­ tremely low. If, for example, a flat rate of 25 percent were imposed on all corporation earnings of $5,000 per year and over, we could have raised in 1928, instead of the less than 000,000 which was actually raised in this manner. Thirdly, present taxation on inheritance and the transfer of estates by gifts is as low as 1 percent, on the average. In consequence of this, the total income for the State and Federal Governments from this source was in 1928 only on total transfers of 000,000. Even on the basis of a tax the revenue in 1928 from this source could have inherit been increased to Fourthly, a seldom-mentioned but very important source of pos­ sible revenue would be a tax on now tax-exempt securities. This, it should be pointed out, is not a new source, since at one there were no tax-exempt securities. By 1932 such securities were abroad in the amount of Since that time a tremendous increase has produced such securities in an amount which approxi­ mates Finally, let us indicate one more neglected source of revenue. Leg­ islators who unhesitatingly introduce sales taxes and other nuisance taxes u on the impoverished masses, choose to overlook the great accumuP of wealth that are listed as corporate surplus. The net corporate surplus in 1928 amounted to Even after 3 crisis years, in the total corporate surplus amounted to over A corporate surplus respresents undistrib­ uted wealth. It is from such surplus that corporations continue to pay dividends and high salaries long after the workers who produced,



this wealth have been reduced to pauperism. Thus, while labor has lost 60 percent of its earnings since 1929, very little change has taken place insofar as interest charges and funded debt. There has been practically no change in the years of 1929 to 1932, and even in 1933 payments on this account were only percent less than in 1929. With your permission we will file for the record tables that show just how an unemployment and social-insurance program such as we need and demand could be financed by tapping these neglected sources of revenue. I might state here that this as well as other material has been more fully elaborated in the recently concluded hearings on H. R. 2827 before the Labor Subcommittee of the House of Representatives. This committee would do well to turn its attention to the problem of reaching these sources of revenue. Until this has been done-until a tax rate such as prevails in England and other countries where labor has been able to exert greater pressure upon government is estab­ lished-we refuse to accept excuses now offered by those who decry demands for adequate social insurance. The sponsors of the Wagner-Lewis bill who go into hysterics when mention is made of proposals for genuine social insurance cry that is impractical. It suits their purpose to bracket the Lundeen,. workers’ unemployment, old-age, and social-insurance bill, H. R. 2827, with such ridiculous concoctions as the Townsend plan. We say that there can be no comparison between our program and the program of Townsend, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the various other demagogues whose only purpose is to exploit the misery and dis­ content of the masses. On the contrary, there is greater affinity both in motive and in content between the Townsend plan and the administration’s program, Neither the Wagner-Lewis bill nor the Townsend plan can provide a system of social insurance. Both try to detract attention from what must be the source of funds-tax upon high income and wealth accumulations. Instead, both plans propose to impose new tax burdens upon the masses, even though these taxes when raised will not serve to provide the funds necessary for the accomplishment of their professed purpose. The Townsend brain storm proposes a lo-percent sales tax to gladden the hearts of the rich. But even if such a monstrous tax were imposed and collected, and even if sales reached the level, the total proceeds would provide only $50 a month, or one-fourth of the amount which the sponsor of this plan calls for. Likewise, the Wagner-Lewis bill, which pretends to be a security measure, is in fact merely another revenue act. As the Secretary of Labor already admitted before this committee, there is nothing in the bill which would compel the Government to use a single penny of the funds raised by this act for social insurance or relief purposes. On the contrary, these funds will, according to this Cabinet member, be available for the building of more battleships and other war purposes. Thus while pretending to provide social security this act helps promote further insecurity for the masses who are by war as of this act, the Federal Government well as by hunger. By sidesteps the demand for a Federal system to meet a Nation-wide problem and condition. Instead it passes the buck to the several



States. Moreover, it seeks to aid those forces in the various States who are fearful lest the masses enactment of more nearlv adequate measures. The bill lends Federal aid those who declare that the must be excluded from all possible benefits. The Wagner-Lewis bill suggests a method whereby even those who are not otherwise excluded shall be compelled to wait until at least before they can hope to come under the doubtful safeguards which this plan would provide. In testimony before the House labor subcommittee, Dr. Harry Lurrie, the known social worker, pointed out that a sample study in the city of Davton, Ohio, demonstrated that even if such a as the Lewis bill had been in operation years previous to the present crisis, less than 10 percent of those now unemployed would be eligible for any benefits whatever. Those who show such great concern for the handful of billionaires of this country, do not hesitate to suggest that the im­ poverished producers shall, when unemployed or handicapped by old age, be reduced to on a maximum of $15 per week. Even this miserly amount is to be withheld until after a worker has been forced to exhaust such pitiful reserves as he may have during a waiting period. Then this bill proposes that after a maximum period of weeks, the is to be set adrift or turned into a forced laborer on some so-called “public works project” at the less than subsistence rate of under $50 per month. We will not attempt to detail all the many other obnoxious features of this so-called “social-security bill.” We do wish to inform this committee that the masses are not to be fooled by such a hideous caricature of a social-insurance program. For proof of this we refer you to the records of the hearings before the 1 subcommittee on H. R. Nearly witnesses appeared in these arniiy rom all of the from every important industry, workers, farmers, and white, men, women, and youths. Their testimony will show that they are doing serious thinking about the problems with which they are faced; will do well to realize that the masses who are held in contempt by the self-anointed leaders and self-styled statesmen, are learning from the bitter experiences of these more than years. They are learning to to see through the ballyhoo and penetrate through the organized campaign of silence and censorship which is directed against all plans and programs that make a serious practical attempt to end the present insupportable conditions. They may lack academic training, but they have that good common sense which Mr. Hearst and others like him, consider merely the special attribute of those Americans who know how to steal and cheat and exploit and thereby amass millions of unearned wealth. They have the aid and support of the trained technicians who along with the entire population face hunger, destitution, and destruction in a Pand of plenty. Some can still be led astray and deceived for a time with such panaceas as the Townsend plan. But we who are close to the masses know that the Townsend plan is by no means as widely supported as the press would have us believe. The movement behind the Townsend plan is as unsound as is the plan. The movement for genuine social insurance rests upon the bottom foundation of the basic organizations of the producing masses.




The trade unions, whose membership is sweeping aside even the opposi­ tion of their official leaders; the fraternal organizations, whose membership is originally attracted by of the need for a form of mutual aid in sickness and in death, but who now find that the very crisis which produces the need for protection against loss of income, serves to destroy the effectiveness of the organizations they established for such an eventuality; the veterans, who see the same forces opposing their demand for social insurance as stand opposed to their demand for immediate payment of their deferred wages, the so-called bonus” ; the Negro masses, who see that they are ex­ cluded and discriminated against in the administration’s so-called “social security program” even as they were discriminated against in every other measure adopted by the present and past adminis­ trations; the professional, the domestic workers, the farmers, the self-employed persons who are rapidly sinking into the ranks of the pauperized mass; these are the forces who constitute the movement for genuine unemployment and social insurance. Of their spokesmen who testified in the before the labor subcommittee of House, not a single one uttered a word of approval for either the Townsend plan or the equally impractical and decep­ tive Wagner-Lewis bill. Each explained what kind of social in­ surance they, as experts on their own needs and the needs of their fellow workers, require and Since it would be impossible to offer amendments to a bill which is deliberately designed evade and defeat the demand for social we will not attempt to offer amendments to the spurious social security bill which is before this committee. Instead we wish in conclusion to outline briefly the principles that must be incorporated in a social insurance measure corresponds to present conditions, needs, and demands of the masses. A genuine unemployment and social insurance program must be designed to safeguard the masses against any lowering of the living standards. It must serve to increase purchasing power, stimulate productivity in the interest of a higher living standard and lead to the necessary redistribution of wealth that is now withheld from circula­ tion. Therefore, compensation must be at least equal to the average wages which workers could earn if permitted to work in their own It must in no case be to normal and fall below a minimum and decency level. A Such compensation can and must be provided by and only at the expense of the Government and employers. No contribution in any direct or indirect form should be levied upon workers and other income groups. All workers, regardless of age, occupation, color, sex, nationality, citizenship, religious or political belief, must be assured such com­ pensation for all time lost because of involuntary unemployment, old age, industrial accident, or sickness and maternity. Representatives directly elected by the workers themselves should administer the social insurance system so that it will be operated in accordance with their conditions, and needs. These principles are not arbitrarily posed. They are the product of several years of exhaustive discussion the problem. They do not represent a utopia. They represent a practical


developed out of the needs and experiences of the great masses who and face the hazards inherent in the present system. They are not developed for an ideal society. They are developed to meet conditions created present day society and are consistent with the present economic resources of the country. They will not provide security. There can be no real security under the present system. But a will provide compensation for insecurity at the exnense of those who from the svstem which creates With the help of competent and economists we have studied the of such a system of unemployment and In making such studies we have kept in mind the social insu fact that the cost will not be greater than that which we workers are now forced to pay for conditions beyond our control for which we any apoligies for the are not responsible. We feel no need to possible cost involved in the establishment of safeguards for the welfare and very existence of the great masses who are the majority of the population. We have no desire to minimize this cost. We, the wage and salary workers of this country have lost 60 billions of No one has yet made apologies or dollars income since amend to us. But in ascertaining the cost, we have established that it will not rep­ resent a fanciful and unrealizable figure. Taking into consideration, the fact that money paid out as compensation for unemployment, and so forth, would be converted into increased purchasing power and would thus be converted into a means for increasing production and employment, our estimate shows that the total cost of social insurance such as we propose would be on the basis of 10 million unemployed, A complete statement on this, together with tables showing how these are arrived at, is available and with your permission we file this for the record. Since we cannot amend the, utterly insupportable Wagner-Lewis bill, call upon this committee to reject it and recommend for immediate enactment, the workers’ unemployment, old age, and social insurance bill which is the only measure now before Congress that incorporates the principles essential to a genuine unemployment and you to frame and recommend the social insurance measure. We adoption of a companion bill to H. R. 2827. With the permission of the committee, I would be glad to file the tables that I have referred to with regard to the sources of funds, with regard to the cost. The CHAIRMAN. They may be filed. Mr. BENJAMIN. And if the committee desires, I am in a position also to file for your information a brief on the constitutionality of the workers unemployment and social insurance act which has been prepared by the international juridical The CHAIRMAN. Give a copy of that to the clerk so that the com­ mittee may have it. Senator BLACK. I would like to find out if the figures you gave in there with reference to incomes, and so forth, do you us the references there to the sources from which you are paid-that is, the Nation? Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes, sir; we are giving you herewith both an analy­ sis of that and the tables as such on the basis of which these figures were arrived at.



Senator BLACK. I think I had a letter from you or from someone stating in reference to a question I asked on the stand a few days ago as to the part of the national income which went to wages and other sources. Someone wrote me a letter and said they had those figures taken from a census report. Are you the one that wrote that letter? Mr. BENJAMIN. I cannot say that I am. Senator BLACK. Have you those figures? Mr. B ENJAMIN . I have figures here that show what the total income of the Nation has been and what the total loss has been in income and what share of that loss has been suffered by the workers. Senator BLACK. The question I had asked was the amount that went to labor from the incomes in value of the manufactured articles. Someone wrote me a letter and said that they had those figures taken from the census. You do not have them? Mr. B ENJAMIN . No, sir. We have figures here that indicate, and on that basis we have estimated the possible amount of reemployment that would be developed by the payment of unemployment and social insurance. We find that 60 percent of the total of purchasing power goes back into wages, and in that sense we find a distribution of the income as of 60 percent. (The matters referred to by Mr. Benjamin in his testimony are as follows:)


We publish below for the first time, the most complete available list of organiza­ tions and other bodies who have formally endorsed the workers unemployment and social insurance bill. Imposing as this list is, it nevertheless includes only such organizations and bodies as have made known their action to either the National Unemployment Council, the A. F. of L. Rank and File Committee for Unemployment Insurance and the Fraternal Federation for Social Insurance. Undboutedly hundreds and perhaps thousands of additional organizations have taken similar action in support of genuine social insurance but have failed to notify any of the bodies that have been conducting the campaign for the workers’ bill. Of the greatest significance and importance is the extensive list of trade-union organizations and locals. These as well as many of the other organizations lent their endorsement in the face of the bitter opposition of the official national leaders of the American Federation of Labor and other spokesmen for such inad­ equate measures as the Wagner-Lewis bill. These endorsements therefore repre­ sent the considered and firm conviction of millions of men and women of every industry and occupation in every part of the country who have learned to dis­ criminate between spurious and genuine unemployment and social insurance plans. We print this list at this time because it can be of great help to the committees and groups in all cities in the effort to secure delegates to the National Congress and in every struggle for unemployment and social insurance. We also take this occasion to urge all the listed organizations to follow up their endorsement by joining in the necessary united effort to compel favorable action by the fourth Congress.

Connecticut: City council, Bridgeport. Idaho: City council, Coeur Illinois: City councils, Belleville, Benald, Casey, Caseyville, Collinsville, Oak, Rockford, Thayer, Virden, and Ziegler. Tarvey, Midlothian, Iowa: County Board of Des Moines. Kentucky: County board, Covington. Maine: County board supervisors, St. George. Michigan: City councils, Caspian, Platt, Sault Ste. Marie, board of supervisors, Baraga County, advisory board district council of Detroit City Com­ mission, Sault Ste. Marie.



Minnesota: City councils, Eveleth, Hibbing, Minneapolis, Rochester and White City Fire Department, Eveleth. Missouri: City council, St. Louis. Montana: City council, Great Falls. Nebraska: Douglas County Board, Omaha. New Jersey: City councils, Bayonne Clifton, Garfield, Linden. New York: City council, Buffalo. Ohio: City councils, Bedford, Brooklyn Village, Canton, and Toledo. Oklahoma: Montgomery County commissioners, city council, Cushing. Oregon: City councils, Iilamath Falls and Portland. Dudely, Pennsylvania: Town councils, Freedom Boro, Longandale, city councils, Allentown, Anrold and Conway, Dickson City, Forest Hills, Glassport, Swissvale and Wilkensburg, school board of Challfont Boro. Washington: City councils, Aberdeen, Tacoma. Wisconsin: City councils, Cudahy, Milwaukee, Superior, West Allis, Lake.

Italian Es-Servicemen’s League, Bridgeport, Corm. ; Veterans’ National Rank and File Committee, District of Columbia; American Legion post, Chicago, Ill.; 3 American Legion posts, Schenectady, 4 American Legion posts, Long Island, Big Six Post Veterans of Foreign Wars, New York, Workers Ex-Servicemen’s League, New York, Daily News American Legion Post, United States War Vet­ erans, Manhattan Camp 1, United States War Veterans, George R. Tilly Camp 66, United States War Veterans, Roosevelt Camp 10, United States War Veterans, Abraham Lincoln Auxiliary 54, New York City, N. Y.; American Legion post, Glassport, Pa. ; American Legion posts, West Virginia.

Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, Amalgamated Association. Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, International Union. American Federation of Full Fashioned Hosiery Workers. Moulders’ Union of North America. Textile Workers of America, United.

State Federation of Labor, Arkansas. State Federation of Labor, Colorado. State Federation of Labor, Iowa. State Federation of Labor, Montana. State- Federation of Labor, Nebraska. State Federation of Labor, Rhode Island.

San Diego Federated Trades and Labor Council, San Diego, Central Labor Union, Danbury, Conn.
Central Labor Union, Gibson County, Ind.
Trades Labor Assembly, Sioux City, Iowa.
Federation of Labor, Kalamazoo, Central Labor Union, Minneapolis, Minn.
Central Labor Union, St. Louis, MO.
Building Trades Council, Great Falls, Mont.
Cascade and Labor Assembly, Great Falls, Mont.
Central Labor Union, Grand Island, Nebr.
Central Labor Union, Lincoln, Nebr.
Central Labor Body, Atlantic City.
Central Labor Union, Newark.
Essex Trades Councils, Newark, Essex, N. J.
Central Labor Union, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Central Labor Union, Jamestown, N. Y.
District Council of Queens and Nassau Counties, N. Y.
Trades Assembly, Schenectady, N. Y.
Bradford Trades Assembly, Bradford, Pa.
Federation of Labor, Hazelwood, Pa.
Central Labor Council, Pittsburgh District, Pa.

ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT Central Labor Union of Jeanette, Pa. Central Labor Union of New Kensington. Federated Trades Council, Reading, Pa. Federated Labor Union, Providence, R. I. Building Trades Council, Providence, R. I. Federation of Labor, Salt Lake City, Utah. Central Labor Union, Spokane, Wash. Trades Labor Council, Wis.


International Association Local 31, Providence, R. I.

Heat and Frost Insulators

Barbers’ International Union, Journeymen Locals: 175, Danbury, 72, Norwalk, Conn.; Belleville, Ill.; 182, Boston, Mass.; 913, Brooklyn, N. Y.; 2, Philadelphia, Pa.; Salt Lake City, Utah. Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ International Union America City, 14Francisco, 237, N. 2, 49 Rochester, 62, Locals: 125 Berkeley, 43 Fresno, 164 Chicago, Ill.; 190 Metuchen, N. J.; 79, 24 New York San 39, 334 Cleveland, 177 Youngstown, Ohio; 45 Boston, Mass.; 204 Pittsburgh, Y.; Pa.; 122 Providence, R. I.; 473 Bellingham, Wash. International Alliance Local: 49 Seattle, Wash. International Brotherhood Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers Locals: 303 Butte, Mont.; 77 Milwaukee, Wis. International Brotherhood Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America Bill Posters and Billers America

Locals: 244 Sioux City, Iowa; 81 Readville, Mass.; 104 Seattle, Wash.; 249 Huntingdon, W. Va. International Union, Brewery, Flour, Cereal, and Drink Workers America Locals: Butte, Great Falls, Mont.; Tacoma, Wash.; Newark, N. J. Bricklayers, Mason and Plasterers International Union America Locals: Baltimore, Md.; 2 Detroit, 19 St. Louis, MO.; Brooklyn, 3 locals in New York, N. Y.; 18 Cincinnati, Ohio; 3 Philadelphia, Pa.; Providence, R. I.; 2 locals, Oshkosh, Wis.; 8 Milwaukee, Wis.; 5 Huntingdon, W. Va. Building Service Emplo yes’ International Union Locals: 1077 New York, N. Y.; 125 Providence, R. I. Bridge and Structural Iron Workers International Association Locals: 420 Reading, Pa.; 2416 Portland, Oreg.; 350 Atlantic City, N. J. Carmen America, Brotherhood Railway Locals: 227 Chicago, Ill. and 210; 23 Princeton, Ind.; 2031, ‘266 Sioux City, Iowa; 56 Atchison, Kans.; 431 Bay City, 1054 Detroit, 641 Port Huron, 299 Minneapolis, Minn 628 Providence, R. I.; 823, 1085 New York, N. Y.; 698 Spokane, Wash. International Wood Carvers’ Association Locals: Pa.; Chicago, Ill.; New York. North America


ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT National Federation Post Clerks

Local: 10 New York, N. Y. Retail Clerks, International Protective Association Local: 753 Philadelphia, Pa.; Butte, Mont. Cigarmakers’ International Union Locals: 225 Salt Lake City, Utah; 14 Chicago, Ill. Coopers, International Union Local: 9 Philadelphia, Pa.; 54 Detroit, United Brotherhood Carpenters and Joiners America District councils: Carpenters District Council, Kansas City, MO. 29th Annual Convention, N. J. State Council of Carpenters, Newark, N. J. Locals: 1687 Montgomery, Ala.; 1089 Phoenix, Ariz.; 891 Hot Springs, Ark.; 210 Stamford, Conn.; 132 District of Columbia; 352 Anderson, 1953 Greencastle, 487 Ind.; 523 Keokuk, 948 Sioux City, Iowa; 1784, 416, 419, 13, 58, 62, 181, 504 Chicago, 896 Crystal Lake, 1366 16 Belleville-Sprmgfield, Ill.; 720 Auburn, 11, 56, 157 Boston, 297 Brockton, Mass.; 116 Bay City, 337 Detroit, 1299 Iron River, 1199 Pontiac, 361 Duluth, 7, 1865 Minneapolis, 87 St. Paul, Minn.; 1329 Independence, Mos., 286 Great Falls, Mont. ; 2237 Bayonne, 349 East Orange, 119, 1782 Newark, 299 Union City, N. 2717 Brooklyn, 2372 Garnersville, 66 Jamestown, 2090, 2163 New York City, 163 Peekskill, 1115 Pleasantville, 203 Poughkeepsie, 1660 Raymondsville; 188 Yonkers, N. Y. 224 Cincinnati, 1180, 2159 Cleveland, 735 Mansfield, 186 Steubenville, Ohio; 59 Lan­ 226, 2218, 2154 Portland, 1065 Salem, Oreg., 2008 Ponca City, caster, 207 Chester, 122, 277, 1050, 1051, 1073, 1856, 2194 Philadelphia, Pa.; 1695 Cranston, 810 Kingston, R. I.; 2016 Eastland, 1666 Kingsville, Tex. ; 1984 Magna, Utah; 317 Aberdeen, 562 Everett, 1184, 1335 Seattle, 84, 98 Spo­ kane, Tacoma, Wash.; 161 2244 Little Chuta, 849 Manatowoc, 1053, 2073 Milwaukee, 4G0 Wis 1620 Rocksprings, 1241 Thermopolis, Wyo.


North America

Amalgamated Clothing Workers


Joint Council St. Louis, MO.; Joint Board of Philadelphia, Pa. ‘Locals: 1 Boston, Mass.; 4 New York, N. Y.; 75 Philadelphia, Pa.; 38 Chi­ cago, Ill. Technical Engineers, Architects Drajtsmen’s Union, International Federaltion Local: 54 Milwaukee, Wis. International Brotherhood Electrical America Locals: 82 Los Angeles, 122 Great Falls, Mont.; 292 Minneapolis, Minn.; 31 Brooklyn, N. Y.; 623 New York City; 65 Butte, Mont.; 48 Sioux City, Iowa. International Union Operating Engineers Locals: Sioux City, Iowa; 5 Detroit, 3 Brooklyn, N. Y.; 506, Angeles, dence, R. I.; 83 Spokane, Wash.

34 Minneapolis, Minn.; 48 Los 835 Philadelphia, Pa.; 37 Provi­ North America

International Engravers Union Local: 5 Chicago, Ill. Federal unions

Ice and Cold Storage Workers, 16918 Centralia, Casket Makers, 19306 Chicago, Ill.; Automobile Workers, United, Federal Labor, 18677 Detroit, Local of United Auto Workers Union, Detroit, Buick Local A. F. of L., Flint, Federal Local 19253 Great Falls, Mont.; Dental Laboratory Technicians, 18405 St. Louis, MO.; Federal Labor Union, 19128 Lincoln, Nebr.; Aeronautical Work­ ers, Federal Labor, 18286 Buffalo, N. Y.; Steel Federal Union, Phila­ delphia, Brass Bobbin Winders, 14659 Philadelphia, Brass Bobbin Winders, Philadelphia, Radio Workers, Federal Labor, 18832 Philadelphia, Pa.;



bile Workers, United Federal Labor, 18614 Cleveland, Ohio; Federal Labor, Providence, R. I.; Federal Labor Union, 19155 Breckinridge, Tex.; Sawmill, 19515 Huntington, Chemical Workers, 18634 Huntington, W. Va.; Federal Labor (Vincent McCall), 18846 Kenosha, Simmons Bed Federated Union, 18456 Kenosha, Federal Labor, Wis. International Association Fire Fighters 287 Long Locals: 37 Chicago, Ill. ; 301 Burlington, Iowa; Beach, Long Island, N. Y. International Brotherhood Locals: 32 Detroit, Firemen and Oilers 13 Spokane, Wash. United States Canada

International Fur Workers’ Union Local: 3 Brooklyn, N. Y.

International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union Locals: 65, 64 Los Angeles, 64 Chicago, Ill.;’ 20, 22, 66 New York, N. Y. America United Garment Workers

Locals: 75 Philadelphia, Pa.; 27 Minneapolis, Minn. Window Glass Cutters’ League Local: 528 New York, N. Y. American Workers’ Union Locals: 93 Chicago, Ill.; 2 Glassport, Pa. International Glove Workers’ Unions Local: 69 Gloversville, N. Y. Granite Cutters, International Association Locals: Concord, N. H.; Barre, Vt. America America America

United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union Locals: 10 Danbury, Conn.; 8 New York, N. Y. ; 6 Philadelphia, Pa. International Hod Carriers, Building Common Laborers’ Union America Locals: 591 Santa Barbara, 270 San Jose, Bridgeport,$Conn.; 455 New Haven, 524 Norwich, 499 Stamford, Conn.; Belleville, Centralia, Zeigler, Ill.; 210 Worcester, Mass.; 563 Minneapolis! Minn.; Princeton, Ind. ; 150 Butte, 278 Great Falls, 187 Missoula, Mont.: 690 Newark, 31 City, N. J.; 141 Port Chester, 435 Rochester, N. Y.; 173 Pittsburgh, Pa.; 271 Provi­ dence, R. I.; 242 Seattle, Spokane, Wash. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Beverage Dispensers, International Alliance Locals: 94 San Francisco, 271 Petaluna, 781 Washington, D. C.; 733 Detroit, 34 Minneapolis, Minn. ; City, N. J.; 325, 2 Brooklyn, N. Y.; 72 Cincinnati, Ohio; 659 Dallas, Tex. Amalgamated Association Iron, Steel, and Workers Locals: 709 New Britain, 184 City, Iowa; Sparrows Point, Md.; 410 Great Falls, Mont.; 149 Clairton, Pa.; Ellwood City, Ellwood City, 68, 67 Johnstown, Pa.; 37 Providence, R. I.; 1 Follansbee, W. Va. Jewelry Workers Union International Locals: 2 Newark, N. J.; 1, 21 New York.



International Union of Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers Locals: 305 Great Falls, Mont.; Sioux Falls, Iowa; 455 Lake Worth, Laundry Workers, International Union Local: 108 St. Louis, MO. United International Union Leather Workers Locals: New York, N. Y.; Chelsea, Mass.; 52 Philadelphia, Pa. Lithographers’ International Protective and States and Canada Local: 5 St. Louis, MO. Longshoremen’s International Association, Locals: 38, 12 Seattle, Wash. Machinists International Association of Convention of International Association of All Machinists of New England, Boston, Mass. Locals: 84 Berwyn, 234, 83, 337, 915 Chicago, 390 Park Ridge, Ill.; 178 Sioux City, Iowa; 404 Baltimore, Md.; 64 Massachusetts; 1122 Detroit, 459 St. Paul, Minn.; Concord, N. H.; 816 Hokoken, N. J.; 447, 402, 226 New York, 417 Staten Island, N. Y.; 162, 729 Cincinnati, 439 Cleveland, 203 Akron, 404 Youngstown, Ohio; 187 Sharpsville, Pa.; 119 Newport, 110 Newport, R. I.; 79 Seattle, Wash.; 57 Huntington, W. Va.; 116 Milwaukee, Wis. International Association of Marble, Slate, and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Saw­ yers, Tile and Marble Setters, Helpers and Terrazzo Helpers Locals: 62 Philadelphia, Pa. ; 8 Providence, R. I.; 47 Milwaukee, Wis. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Butcher Workmen of North America Locals: 333 Butte, Mont.; 545 St. Louis, MO.; 18, 174 New York, N. Y.; Philadelphia, Pa. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Locals: 1077 New York, Y.; Sioux City, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Locals: 2 Stockton, 615 Buffalo, 137 New York, N. Y.; 329 Salisbury, N. C.; 37 Providence, R. I.; 446 Great Falls, Mont. International Union of Mine, Mill, Smelter Workers Local: Bessemer, Ala. Eveleth, Minn.; 3 Bingham, Utah; Spelter, W. Va.; 1636 Kansas City, MO.; Salt Lake Utah. 125 Iron River,

Association of fhe United

Coast Convention

United Mine Workers of America Locals: 3664 Auburn, 3543 52, 1397 Centralia, Glen Ridge, 3644 Gillespie, 2840 Middlegrove, 2109 Nashville, 721 2403 Springfield, 720 Staunton, 691 Troy, 5599 Wes tville, Ill.; 6303 5584 Princeton, Ind.; Des Moines, 916 Hitema, Iowa; 191 South Hibbling, Minn.; 1 Butte, Mont.; 4472 Glen Robins, 5497 Powhatan, Ohio; 1451 Connerton, 2399 Dairytown, 4439 494 Homer City, 1560 Lost Creek, 807 Maple Hill, 2587 Raven Tun Torty Fort, 5383, 3506 1398 Shaft, 2611, 113, 2346, 1509, 1414, 14-23, 1685, 6109, 1467 Shenandoah, Three Locals Westmoreland, Six Mile Run, 4439 South Brownsville, 458 Pa.; 6147 Besoco, 6107 6106 Meade, 2980 Pimberton, W. Va.; Ladies Auxiliary 920, Pittsburgh, Ladies Auxiliary 762 Pittsburgh, Pa.

ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT International Molders’ Union of North America


Locals: 161 Stamford, Conn.; 182 Belleville, 275 Chicago, 153 Hazelcrest, Ill.; 388 Kalamazoo, Anaconda, Mont.; 84 Buffalo, 78 24 Baltimore, Watertown, N. 27 Cleveland, Ohio; Cheltersham, Philadelphia, 111 Phila­ delphia, 348 Reading, Pa. 171 Port Orchard, 158 Seattle, 338 Spokane, Wash. American Federation Locals: 403 Willimantic, Conn.; 219 ington, W. Va. Oil Field, Gas and Chemical and Oil Workers Union, Oakland, Ill.; 24 Akron, Ohio; 362 Hunt­ Workers of America Local 210 Hammond,

Brotherhood of Painters, Paperhangers and Decorators of America District councils: Painters District Council 46, Los Angeles, Painters District ; District Council-Advisory Bd. Painters Bro., Council, San Francisco, Detroit, Semiannual Conference State Painters, Lansing, Painters District Council Kansas City, MO.; Painters District Council, Newark, N. J.;. Painters District Council 21, Philadelphia. Locals: 713, 449 Glendale, 235, 5 Hollywood, 1346 Inglewood, 256 Long Beach,. 1065, 92, 1345, 1348, 51, 202, 831, 792, 644, 511, 636, 202, 1348, Los Angeles, 92 Montrose, 1147 Roseville 315 San Jose, 821 Venice, 441 Whittier, 949 Wilmington, 930 Denver, 190 Bridgeport, 1276 Westport,. 368 Washington, D. C.; 1088 Dayton Beach, 1321 Clear-water, 1175 Coral Gables, Fla.; 193 Atlanta, Ga.; Belleville, 627, 275, 294, 637 Chicago, 863 Lake Forest, 460 Hammond, 111.; 1215 Boone, Iowa; 277 Atlantic City, East Rutherford, 997, 426 Heights, 705 Irvington, 777 Newark, 174, 140 Passaic, 144 Perth N. 201 Albany, 442 Brooklyn, 504 Flushing, Long Island, 822 Glen Cove, 721 498 Jamestown, 121 Long Island City, 848, 892, 499, 997, 1101, 905, 261 New York City, 707 Oneida, 1035 Richmond Hill, Long Island, 795 Beach, Long Island, 1134 Center, N. 229 Kansas City, Kans., 1244 New Orleans, La.; 623 Chelsea, 258 Boston, Mass.;. 675 Dearborn, 42, 357, 591, 37, 552 Detroit, 9 Kansas City, MO.; 1086, 386 Minneapolis, 681 Rochester, 540 Winona, 720 Butte, 260 Great Falls, Mont.; 50, 308, 866, 531 Cincinnati, 765, 867, 128 Cleveland, 1103 Mentor, 546 Toledo, Ohio; 443 Okmulgee, 935 Tulsa, Okla.; 788 Sandu’sky, 438 476 Youngstown, Ohio; Gibsonia,. 1114 Danesville, 380 Lancaster; 887 City, 306, 997, 703, 632 Philadelphia, 479, 282, 6, 84 Pittsburgh, Pa.; 15 Central Falls, 195,692 Providence, R. I.; 586 Spartanburg, 965 Jackson City, 123 Vt.; 743 Olympia, 1220 Tacoma, 1114 Janesville, Wash. ’ . Pattern League Local: Detroit, Paper Plate and Bag Makers Local: 107 New York City, N. Y.
’ ., . .
Paving Cutters ‘Union of the United States of America and Canada .. Locals: Clark Island, 108 Tenants Harbor, ‘9 Thomaston, Maine; 43 stock, Md.; 53 Rockport, Concord, N. H. Plasterers International Association of the United States and Canada United 460 San Francisco, Locals: 87 Montgomery, Ala.; . 343 Long 32 Denver, Colo.; Bloomington, Ill.; 155 Baltimore, Md.; 65 Minneapolis, Minn.;. Omaha, Nebr.; 60 New York, N. Y.; 1 Cincinnati, 7 Toledo, 179 Youngstown, 214 Hamilton, Ohio; 40 Providence, 182 Franklin, R. I.; 31 Pittsburgh, Pa.; 746 Mount Vernon, 77 Seattle, Wash. ; 110 Great Falls, Mont.; 428 Wis. ; 352 Ovel, Wyo. United Association of Plumbers and Steam Fitters of the United States and Canada Locals: 230 San Diego, ; 18 Sioux City, Iowa; 64 Northampton, Mass.; 98 Detroit, 41 Butte, 139 Great Mont.; 1 Brooklyn, 206 Elmira, N. Y.; 98 Cleveland, 108 Hamilton, Ohio; Reading, Pa.; 476, 29 Providence,. R. I.; 504 Beaumont, ; 608 West Allis, Wis.


ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT International Union Metal Polishers

Locals: 6, 277 Chicago, Ill. Printing Pressmen’s and Assistants’ Union of North America Locals: 140 San Diego, 147 Wichita, Kans.; 3, 4 Chicago, Ill.; Brunswick, N. J.; 23 New York City, N. Y. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Worlcers of the and Canada Locals: 37 East Millinocket, 27 Woodland, Maine. United Textile Workers’ of America-Plush Weave Local: 471 Philadelphia, Pa. Quarry Workers, International Union of North America Locals: 82 Rockport, 81 Lanesville, Mass. Railway Brotherhood, Order of Railway Conductors of America Local: 55 Port Jervis, Y. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Local: Milwaukee, Wis. Brotherhood of Engineers Delegates from 150 divisions of locomotive engineers, Kansas City, M O. ; locals: 405 Milwaukee, Wis.; West Virginia. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen Locals: 23 Jersey City, N. 183 Cleveland, Ohio; Montivedo, Minn.; 1 Port Jervis, N. Y. Order of Railway Conductors of America Locals: 69 El Paso, Tex.; 1 Oak Park, Ill.; 698 Chicago, 227 Chicago, Ill. United Slate, Composition Roofers, Dam and Waterproof Workers’ Association ’ Locals: 80 Great Falls, Mont.; 4 Newark, N. J. .

International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada Locals: 130 Altoona, Pa. ; 361 Kenosha, Wis. ; 475 Eau Clair, Wis.; 598 Marion, Ohio; 644 New York, N. Y,; 3 in Sioux City, Iowa; 150 Los Angeles, 306 R. I. ; 460 Wis.; International Alliance New York, N. Y. ; 223 of-Projectionists, New York, N. Y. International and . Union of North America

Locals: 8 East St. Louis, Ill.; 114, 15 Dayton, Ohio. Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association of North America Locals: Akron, Ohio; Concord, N. H. Switchmen’s Union of North America Locals: 240 Liberia, Kans.; 291 Paducah, Ky. International Typographical Union 41 Atlanta, Ga.; Locals: 231 San Jose, 899 Whittier, 221, 21 San Diego,’ Ill.; 491 Pocatello, 241 Turvi Idaho; 330 Berwyn, 215 Decatur, 306 292 Cedar Rapids, Iowa; 590 Hobart, Indianapolis, Ind.; 727 Hibbing, Minn. ;



131 Elmhurst, Long Island; 6 New York, N. Y.; 499 Okmulgee, Okla.; 62 Toledo, 2 in Toledo, Ohio; 242 York, Pa.; 43 Charleston, S. C.; 202 Seattle, Wash.; Daily News Chapel, New York City, N. Y. Journeymen Tailors’ Union of America Locals: Youngstown, Ohio; 46 Buffalo, N. Y.;’ 131 Pittsburgh, 323 Bethle­ hem, Pa.; 1.06 Spokane, Wash.; 86 Milwaukee, 282 Green Bay, American Federation of Teachers Local: 256 Grand Rapids, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, America Locals: 429 Reading, Pa.; Los Angeles, Minn.; 156 Philadelphia, Pa. Stablemen, and Helpers of Atlantic City, N. J.; Duluth,

United Textile Workers of America ‘United Textile Workers Convention; District Council of American Federation of Full Fashion Hosiery Workers of New Jersey; District Council of American Federation of Full Fashion Hosiery Workers of New York, New York City, N. Y.; Convention of American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Reading, Pa. Locals: New Orleans, La.; 31 Northampton, Mass.; 1733 Paterson, 2052 Union City, N. J.; 8 New York, N. Y.; Allentown, 4 Langhorn, 1750, 702, 1589, 1526, ‘706 Philadelphia, Pa. Upholsterers’ International Union of North America Locals: 75 Baltimore, Md.; 77 Philadelphia, Pa.

California Agricultural and Cannery Workers Industrial Union. Connecticut Shoe Makers Association of New Haven. Illinois Progressive Miners of America of Cuba, Taylor Springs, and Springfield, Workers Alliance Union of Staunton. Massachusetts Weavers Progressive Association of Fall River.
Workers Protective Union of Lowell.
National Textile Workers Union.
Michigan Registered Pharmacists Association of Detroit. Sheet Workers of Detroit. Auto Workers Union of Detroit. International Society of Detroit. United Workers of Detal Co. of Escanaba. Minnesota Packinghouse Workers Industrial Union. New York City of Laboratory Technicians. American Newspaper Guild. Alteration Painters. . .



Workers’ Union.
Food Workers Industrial Union.
Furniture Workers Industrial Union.
Glass and China Decorators Industrial Union.
Laundry Workers Industrial Union.
Marine Workers Industrial. Union.
Needletrades Workers Industrial Union.
Tobacco Workers Industrial Union.
Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union.
Soft and Bristle Hairdressers Union.
Toy Workers Industrial Union.
Photographic Workers Industrial Union.
Ohio Mechanics Educational Society, Cleveland. Pennsylvania Union of Beaver County of Rochester. National Miners Union of Pittsburgh. United Ribbon Workers Association of Allentown. Independent Coal Operators Association of Shamokin. Independent Union of the Columbia Steel and Shaft Co. of Carnegie. Rhode Island American Independent Textile Workers Union of Pawtucket. Texas Laborers Association of Breckenridge. de de Jornaleros. Washington Fisherman and Cannery Workers Industrial Union of Seattle. National Lumber Workers Union of Seattle.



New Britain Association of Lithuanian Workers, Inc., Br. 108, Lithuanians’ Citizens Independent Club, Polish Workers, Scandinavian Entertainers, Scan­ .. dinavian Workers, First Polish, Slovak Political. Illinois Polish Democratic Club, Chicago, Progressive Workers of Brookside Township, Polish-American Citizens, Chicago Heights, Hunters Protective Club. Michigan ’ , Chippewa County Workingmen’s of Sault Ste. Marie, Slovak American Citizens Club. New York City Associated Workers Club, Moshulu Progressive, Pelham Parkway Workers, New Youth Group, Progressive, Tremont Progressive, Midas Youth, wood Youth, Utica Center, Canarsie Workers, New Youth, Progressive Workers, Social Youth, Progressive Community Center, American Youth, Taxpayers Civic Ann’s of Maspeth, Inc., Italian American Progressive, New Group, Pequoits Ladies Social, Tamacqua Social, Unionport Political, Yorkville Workers, A. C., Social, Boro Park Culture, New Group, New Culture, Rugby Youth, Red Sparks, Cli Grand, West Side, W. C., New Youth Center, Hollis Circle Democratic Club, Elmhurst, Crematorial Society Bremer Ladies, James W. Husted Fellowcraft, National John Reed Clubs, Italian American Progressive Club.

ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT New Jersey American Slovak Citizens’ Club. Ohio


Julian Marchlewski Polish Club, Doumanian Democratic Social Club. Pennsylvania Polish Club, Carnegie, Workers Educational Club, Monessen, Polish Workers Rod and Gun Clubs. Club,

California Workermen’s Sick and Death Benefit fund of U. S. A. Connecticut Italian Fraternal Association.
St. Stanislaus Society 102 Polish Union of America.
Daughters of Mary. St. Vincent Society. L. D. S. Youth Branch 143. Modern of America Camp 10431. Grand Duke , Ladies Evangelical Congregational Circle., . National Slovak Society. Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America. Hungarian Aid Association of America. Education Zirgvoikis Benefit Society. International Workers Order. St. George Benefit Society. St. Andrews Benefit Society. St. Joseph Benefit Society. St. Kasimer Benefit Society Lithuanian. Russian Mutual Aid Society of America. Sons and Daughters Benefit Society.. Towarzystwo, Swietego Kryzyza. Illinois . Russian National Mutual Aid Society. Mutual Protective Association Inland Steel Local. Scandinavian Unitv Conference. Italo-American National Union. Aido Chorus. . Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America. Slovak Evangelical Union A. Slovak Evangelical Union A. Knights of Peter Claver. Indiana . of America. Iowa of America. Louisiana Montana Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America.
International Workers Order.
Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America.
Maryland Polish American 116807-35-74 . ’ .




Polish District Chamber of Labor.
Tadensz Kosiuszko.
S. B. Liasve’s Chorus.
Minnesota Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America. Missouri Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America. International Workers Order. West Virginia Slovak Evangelical Union. A. C. of America. Michigan Lithuanian Art Chorus. United Ukrainian Toilers. Italian Lodge. Baptist Church. Evangelical Slovak Women’s Union. National Slovak Society. Slov. Ev. Av. Confession Union. All Saints Society. Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America. United Sausage Distributors Union L. 122. Slovak Gim Sokol. Jersey International Workers Order.
Association of Lithuanian Workers.
Russian National Mutual Aid Society.
Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America.
Russian National Mutual Aid Society.
Elso Magyi Garoby B. S. E.
‘Rakocsi Hungarian Sick Benefit Association.
Verhovay Aid Association.
Cxechoslovak Society of America, Lodge 236, Dunellen, Bohemian Workers Sick and Death Society.
Hungarian Workers Home and Amateur Society.
Poniatowski Beneficial Ass’n, Inc.
Workers Ass’n.
Slovak Gymnastic Union, Sokol, Lodge 220.
Slovak National Society.
National Slovak Society. . . . First Catholic Slovak Union. New City Independent Order of Odd Fellows: Thomas Jefferson Lodge 441; Pannonia Lodge 185. Knights of Columbus: Brendan Council 306; Vincentian Council. Foresters of America: Grand Court State of New York; Court 16, 200, 211, ‘211, 349, 439, 453. Independent Sons of Italy: Supreme Lodge. Sons of Italy Grand Lodge: Loggia Cesare Battisti 583; Loggia Uguaglianza 83. Workmen’s Circle: Branches 35, 38, 396, 405, 407, 417 515, 554, 956. Workmen’s Sick and Death Benefit Fund: National Manhattan Agitation Committee; Branches 1, 6, 23, 24, 70, 103, 157, 158, 180, 224. Biellese Workers Mutual Society. Geisen Sick Benevolent Society: Ostrolenker Y. M. B. A. Adolph Ullman Aid Society: Radnick Chorus.
Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America: Branch 28.
International Workers Order: 1,100 Branches.

International Workers Order, Youth Section: 450




Independent Tomashpoler Society.
Prager Warschauer Y. M. A. S.
Russian National Mutual Aid Society: Branches 45, 47, 65, 66, 69, 86, 88, 104.
Slovak Catholic Sokol Society.
of the World, Liberty Camp 279.
Workmen’s Benevolent and Benefit Society.
Loggia B. Cellini.
First Dimerer Progressive Society.
Sun Ray Democratic Association.
Fraternal Federation for Social Insurance.
Bershader Benevolent Society.
Catholic Sokol.
Fathers Club of the Lavanburg Homes.
Societa’ Campobello di Mazzara.
Societa’ Cittadini di Favara.
Societa’ Concordia Partanna.
Societa’ Cor Bonum Corigliarrere.
Societa’ Progressiva Italiana.
Mutual Aid Society.
Militello Rosmarino.
M. S. Sauteramio in Colle. Adornese di M. S., Inc. Societa’ Mutuo Soccorso Furnarese.
Association of Lithuanian Workers, Inc., Branch 13, 14, 15.
Association of Lithuanian Workers, Youth Branch.
Lithuanian St. George’s Society.
Roumanian Christian Society.
Roumanian Society Avram Iancu. Ukranian Benefit Society Bukowina”.
Ukranian Free Alliance. Vereinigte Arbeiter Kranken und Sterbe Kasse, of N. A. Branch 6.
and Vicinity Sick and Benevolent Association.
First Stepiner Benevolent Association. Warschauer Brotherly Love Benevolent Society.
First Orgayever Benevolent Association.
Maramaros Young Men’s Society of Brooklyn. First Stepiner Benevolent Society. Lomzer Young Men’s B. A.
Ind. Forest Odessa S. Ben. Association.
Polonker Society.
’ Odesser Young Ladies Benevolent”Ass’n. New ’
Independent Sons of Italy in America. Workmen’s Sick and Death Benefit Fund Branches 211, 28.
Russian National Mutual Aid Society.
Association of Lithuanian Workers.
. Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Ass’n. Workmen’s Circle Branch 221. Ohio Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America.
Societa’ di Mutuo Soccorso.
San Nicola Savoia di San Polo Matese.
Penns Superior Order of Lithuanian Local 3. Pennsylvania Slovak Union. Croatian Benefit and Education Society. Croatian Fraternal Union 94.
Slovanian National Benefit Union 505.
Dante Alighieri Society, Inc.
Fraternal Order of Eagles of Pitcairn.
Polish Beneficial Association of St. John Ceanitus.

1166 ,


American Slavic Benevolent Association.
Italian Sons and Daughters of Polish Workers Aid Fund N-107.
Ukranian Women’s League.
Lemko Association, Chapter 8.
A. L. D. L. D., Branch 399.
National Slovak Society.
Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of America.
Rhode Island Swedish Workingmen’s Association. Wisconsin Italian-American Society.
Blue Bird Lodge 116.
W. A. Gardner Lodge 191.
Polish National Alliance.
Slovak Evangelical A. C. of America.


Lithuanian Girls and Ladies Benefit Society, New Britain; Women’s Auxiliarv, Belleville, Women’s Council, New Haven, Conn., P. M. Ill. ; Ukranian United Toilers Women’s Section, Br. 4 Detroit, United Council Working Class Women, New York; Ladies Auxiliary to United Mine Workers of America 762, South Brownsville, Pa.; Women’s Auxiliary Interna­ tional Association of Machinists Milwaukee, Wis.

California California Workers Association. Colorado Workers Unemployed Council of Connecticut Unemployment Protective Association of New Haven. Florida Florida State Federation of Workers League, Tampa. American Workers Union. Chicago Workers Committee. . Illinois Workers Alliance. Fort Wayne Unemployed League. Massachusetts Springfield Unemployed League. Michigan Single Men’s Club of Iron River. Minnesota Central Council of Workers of Minneapolis. Roosevelt C. W. A. Club of Eveleth. Montana Butte Workingmen’s Union 12985 of Butte. Kansas .
Illinois Indiana

ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT New Mexico Clayton Unemployed Council. New York South Shore Unemployment Association of Long Island. Eastern Federation of Unemployed and Emergency Workers. Unemployed Hatters Union 8. Workers Unemployed Union. County Unemployed and Relief Workers Union of Schenectady. Ohio National Unemployed League, Columbus. Pennsylvania Unemployed Ribbon Workers Association of Allentown. Uuemployed Citizens League of Allegheny County. Workers Relief Protective Association of Erie. Roosevelt, New Deal Federation of Monessen. Druggist Unemployed of Philadelphia. Unemployed ers Council of Philadelphia. South Dakota United Workers League of Sioux Falls. Relief Workers Association of Port Angeles. West Virginia


West Virginia Unemployed League District 2 (22 locals) of Huntington.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Unemployed Union.
West Virginia Unemployed Leagues.
Wisconsin Wisconsin Federation of Workers Committees of Communist Partv of America.
Farmer Labor Federation, Minnesota.
Socialist Party, Bridgeport, Conn.
Bethlehem, Pa.
Young Communist League.
Young People’s Socialist League, Washington, D. C. Scandinavian Workers League, New Britain; A. M. E. Zion Methodist Church; Inter-Racial Protective League; Chicago, Ill.; A. M. E. Zion Methodist Church, Baltimore, Md.; Conference of Jewish Social Service, Atlantic City, N. J.; League of Struggle for Negro Rights, American Youth Congress; Brighton Beach Parent Teachers Class Room Reachers Groups, Social Workers Discussion Club, Interprofessional Association for Social Insurance, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Associated Office and Pro­ fessional Emergency Employees, League Against War and Fascism, Interna­ tional Labor Defense, Daily News Subs’ Club, New York City, N. Church of Assembly of God, Cushing Okla.; Young Bay Coop Diary, Astoria, Oreg.; Farmers National Committee of Action, Pennsylvania; A. M. E. Zion Methodist Church, Philadelphia, Pa.


Chairman: F. Elmer Brown, N. Y. C.; vice chairman: Mary van Kleeck, N. Y. C.-F. S. Kidneigh, Denver, Vasas, Bridgeport, Conn.; executive secretary: Herbert Benjamin, N. Y. C.; treasurer: T. Arnold Hill, N. Y. C. Alabama.-A. A. Thorpe, Switchmen’s Union No. 46, Fairfield; Larry Walker, U. C., Pratt City; Jos. Howard, U. C., Birmingham. Arkansas.-Horace Bryan, U. C., Greenwood; Floyd Lowery, U. M. W. of America, Midland.



California.-Harry Adams, Public Works and Unemployed Union, San Francisco; Harry Bridges, President San Francisco Local, International Long­ shoremen’s Association. Connecticut. - R a y m o n d J o n a s , Pratt and Whitney Ind. Aircraft Union, Hartford; Joseph Nygren, Progressive Party of Naugatuck, Naugatuck; Joseph Vasas, Rokossi Hungarian Sick and Death Benefit Society, Bridgeport. Colorado.-F. S. Kidneigh, Boilermaker and Iron Ship Builders, S. P., Denver Farm Holiday Association, (Local No. 179);Allan 0. Harold ’ national chairman, veteran rank and District of file committee, Washington. Florida.-Ricardo Diz, U. C., S. Jacksonville. Georgia.-J. A. Moreland, I. W. Atlanta. Miners of America, Local No. 1, Gillespie Illinois.-William Frame, Elmer Johnson, Painters Local No. 637, Chicago; Orphanos, Amalgamated Steel and Tin Association No. 52, Gary; Karl U. C. of Cook County, Chicago; Frank Hamilton, Small Home and Land Owners of Illinois, . Chicago; Rudolph Martinowix, Czechoslovack United Front, Chicago. R. Meade, Iowa U. C., Des Moines. Kansas.-Carl 0. Glenn, State Organizer American Workers Union, S. P., Kansas City; Waldo National Chairman, First National Youth Congress Topeka. Kentucky.-Jim Garland, U. C., Pineville. Louisiana.-Richard Babb Whidden, S. P., Alice Pratts, U. C., New Orleans. H. Maxfield, State secretary of Main S. P., Portland. Maryland.-Cass Bailey, United Building Trades Federation, Baltimore; William Seeberger, Washington Lodge No. 3 Masons, Baltimore; Rabbi Edward L. Israel, Central Conference of American Rabbis; Mitchell, Professor, John Hopkins University. Roscoe Faretta-Local No. 9, United Shoe Leather Wkrs. Union, Haverhill; Philip V. Moore-V. Pres. Interstate Discrimination Council, U. T. W., Indian Orchard; Pres. Ludlow Local of U. T. S.; Benjamin E. United Shoe Leather Workers Union, Lynn; Jasob Hirsch-Lasters Local, Bro. Shoe and Allied Crafts, Brockton; Karl Kimberley-Decorators Branch of Plasterers Local No. 10, Bedford; Seymoud E. Allen-No. 18385 Federal Labor Union, Springfield. Michigan.-Richard Kroon-Sec’y A. F. of L. Committee for Unemployment General President, Mechanics Ed. Society Insurance, Detroit; J. F. of America. Minnesota.-John Baker-A. F. of L. Committee for Unemployment Insurance, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Gov. Olson Minneapolis; H. G. Local, Eveleth; A. D. Offley-U. F. L. Holiday Ass’n, U. C., Ottertail County, R. R. McGraw--Labor Advancement Ass’n, Truck Drivers Local No. 346, Painters Local No. 106, Duluth. Missouri.-John Dav-Route No. 1, Joplin, U. U. -Farmers’ Holiday Plan; Herschel Butchers Union. New Mexico. F. Richards-U. S., Albuquerque; John Socoro-Spanish League, Los Vegas. New Hampshire.-Malcolm D. Youn, T. W. Local No. 2301, Treasurer, New Jersey.-John Turgyan-Hungarian Action Corn., Trenton; Joseph Jannerelli-Dyers Local No. 1733 A. F. L., Patterson; Fred Haug-State Fed. of Unemp. Relief Workers Orgs., Irvington; W. H. O’Donnell, Jr.-Chairman Unemp. Relief Orgs.; Ed. Wintenberger-Painters Local No. 989, New - M . Cowl-Womens Committee, N. Y. C.; McQuistion-Marine Workers Unemp. Council; Fred Milton-I. L. A.; Ben Gold-Needle Trades Local No. 75 Bricklayers; Phil Flick-Local Wkrs. Ind. Union; Harry No. 131 Painters, Dora Rich-Womens Councils; Gardner Home Relief Bureau Association; Alexander Taylor-A. 0. P. E. E.; Arthur Albion Hartwell-I. P. A.; Jules Korchien,-National Sec’y, Berry-L. S. N. Federation of Architects, Engineers? Chemists, and Technicians; Corliss Author; Harry L. Lurie-Economist and Social Worker; William B. Executive Sec’y, Church League for Industrial Democracy; Louis National A. F. of L. Committee for Unemployment Insurance; Alfred G. Winters-Personnel Director, American Ass’n. of Social Workers; Dr. Reuben Young-National Treasurer, League of Struggle for Negro Rights; H. S.


dock-President, American Radio Telegraphers’ Ass’n.; Herbert National Organizer, National Unemployment Council; John P. Davis, Joint Corn. for Nat’1 Recov.; Peter C. Giambalvo, Supreme Council, Ind. Order Sons of Italy; H. Dulitzky, Workmen’s Circle; George Sec’y Fraternal Fed. for Social Insurance; Paul Brissenden-School of Business, Columbia University; Hevwood Broun American Newspaper Guild; Earl Browder-General Sec’y, Communist Party, U. S. A.; F. Elmer Brown-National Chairman, Amalgamated Party, Typo. Union; Ben Davis, Jr.-Editor, The Negro Liberator; William Foster-National Sec’y, Trade Union Unity League; Granville Hicks-Editor, New Masses, Troy; T. Arnold Hill-The National National Sec’y Marine Workers Industrial Union; Urban League; Roy Grace Hutchins-Labor Research Ass’n; I. Amter-National Sec’y, National Unemployment Council, U. S. A.; Roger Baldwin-Director, American Civil Liberties Union; Max Bedacht-General Sec’y, International Workers’ Order; John C. Hopewell-Traction Workers Union; Max Shulman-Typographical No. 6; Dolitsky-Workmen’s Circle; Elsa Jansen-Workers Sick Death Benefit Society; Theodore Mischell-National Fraternal Advisory Committee for Unemployment Social Insurance. Albany-Schenectady Territory: Clarence Carr-Pres. Ind. Leather Workers Union Local No. 1, Fulton County, Johnstown; Western Central New York U. C., Buffalo; Ragnar Videll-S. M. W. I. U., Territory; George Jamestown; Joseph Bakers Local No. 14, Rochester. North D. J. Todd-Labor Association, Williston. Ohio.-J. J. Vanacek-Chairman F. Committee Czech Slovak, S. P., City General Committee U. C., Cleveland; E. C. Cleveland; Frank Greenfield-State Ch. Small Home and Land Fed., Ch. Sponsoring Corn.; Giny R. Venditti-Italian Fraternal United Front of Ohio, Bedford. D. Smith-Heavener; John Parker-No. 7 Workingman’s Union of the World, Spiro. ’ Oregon.-Dirk De Jonge-State U. C., Portland. Chas. Nolker-U. M. W. A., Library; Mike C. T. C. Pres. U. M. W. A., Frank Bury-Nat. Slovak Society, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Clark Noonan-Jeanette Central Trades Council, Rubber Worker, JH;;ett$; John Reedy-Am. Lace Operative Local No. 1, Philadelphia; 0. J. Steel Fed. Labor Union No. 18887, Arthur H. Fed. of Teachers Local No. 19‘2, Philadelphia; Charles Radio and Metal Workers (indep.), Philadelphia; Helen Pierce-U. C., Slovak Evangelical Union A. C. of Am.; James Philadelphia; Paul Egan-Sec’y, Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union; Lem Harris-Executive Sec’y, Farmers National Committee for Action, Philadelphia. Vice Pres. Painters Local No. Rhode Island.- J o h n Francis Providence; Albert Jannuccillo-Providence Central Federated Union, dence-Business Agent, Journeyman Barbers Union; Madilene Alumnae Ass’n Bryn Mawr; Y. W. C. A. from Providence, R. I.; Earl P. bee-State Corn. S. P. of R. I., Providence. South Carolina.--Niels Christensen- S o u t h Carolina Barter Exchange, fort. U. C., Dallas; J. D. Ansley-Harris City U. C., Texas.-E. V. M Houston. Tennessee. A. Weeks-Unico, Washington and Carter Counties Workers’ Leagues, Jonesboro. Smith-Farm Holiday Ass’n, Yoder. Vermont.-Richard Truba-Granite Cutters’ International, Barre. Virginia. -Tilmon Cadle-U. M. W. A. Dist., Washington. H. Murray-U. C. L., Seattle. West Luther Fast-U. C., Spiker-U. C., town. Wisconsin. -Arnold Timpson-U. C., Gleason; W. A. Harju-Workers and Farmers’ Cooperative Unity, Superior.
















Friends City Committee Unemployed Mens Councils Philadelphia; Holland Ohio Unemployment Council Local No. 2; Hungarian Workers Federation of Gary, Ind.; Unemployment Council, Akron, 0.; Unemployed Council Local

ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT No. 6, Woods Run, Pa.; United Farmers League of Dickey County, N. Dak.; Ella May Branch of the I. L. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.; Metal and Machinery Local No. 311, 92 Waverly St., Yonkers; New Lots Workers Club of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Sick and Death Benefit Fund, Ridgewood, N. Y.; Local Sponsoring of Canton, Ohio; Twenty-Second Ward Cleveland Unemployment Council; Mass Meeting-of Unemployed and Employed citizens of Bell County, Italian Workers Society for Mutual Benefit of the West Side, Cleveland; Eastern Ohio Valley District Ways and Means Committee, Wheeling, W. Va.; Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Philadelphia Local 60; Superior Wisconsin Finnish Working Womens Clubs; Members of Camp Williams Penn Number 14 Order of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, Pa.; Thompson Street Unem­ ployed Council No. 3, Philadelphia, Pa., Secretariat Minnesota Wisconsin Dis­ trict Finnish Working Womens Club, Superior, Wis.; Lemko J. R. S. of Cleveland, 0.; A. F. L. Rank and File Committee, Oakland, Cal.-6 Locals A. F. L. Unions comprising 3,500 members; Sons of Labor Mutual Aid Society, Wilmington, Delaware; Small Home and Land Owners Federation Bohemian Members of Branch Five, Cleveland, Ohio; Mullen Local No. 9 I. U. M. M. and S. W., Mullen, Idaho; Get Together Club of Superior, Wis.; Workers of Mayfield, Ohio; Jewish Women’s Council, Lynn, Mass.; Assembly of Philadelphia, Pa., German Workers Club, Milwaukee, Wis.; District Plenum of I. W. O., South California; 150 members of the 10th ward assembly of the Unem­ ployment Councils, Cleveland, Ohio; District Conference of Polish Sick Aid Incorporation, New York, N. Y., Canton Slovaks, Canton, Ohio; Members of Seventh Ward Club of Youngstown, Ohio; Members of Bohemian Branch of the International Workers Order, Cleveland. Ohio and members of audience assembled in Bohemian National Hall, Janu­ ary 6; Workers Cultural League of Massachusetts, Dorchester, Mass. (repre­ senting 650 members) ; 600 workers representing many organizations, assembled in mass meeting and demonstration for unemployment insurance, January 6, San Francisco, California; Cleveland Unemployment Council Central Body rep­ resenting 5,000 members; James Eagan Branch International Labor Defense, Union of Greater New York; Jugoslav Branch 4251, Pittsburgh, Pa.; IWO, of Cleveland, Ohio; National Convention Mechanics Education Society of America assembled in Cleveland, Ohio; Altro Work Shop of New York City; Uj Elore Hungarian Daily of Cleveland, Ohio; Executive Committee Club, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Unemployment Councils of Buckeye, neighborhood of Cleve­ land, 0.; International Workers Order of Cleveland, Ohio; International Workers Order, Branch 2550, of Cleveland, 0.; Hungarian United Front for Social Insur­ ance of Chicago, Ill., International Workers Order, Branch 1026, of Newark, N. J.; Bavridge Unemployment Council of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Oddz Spojnia of Youth of the Hungarian Workers Federation of Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Centro Obrero Puertorriqueno of New York City; Central Federation Unem­ ployed Citizens League of Seattle, Wash., Brighton Beach Unemployment Coun­ cil of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Authors League of America of New York City; Ujich, Ketleinen, of Ellis Island; Fur Floor Workers Union, Local No. 3, of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Downtown Section of International Labor Association Defense of New York City; Workers League of Ludington, of Optometrists of New York State; Unit No. 4, Illinois Workers Alliance of Sandoval, Ill.; National Guardsman, Infantry, 33rd Division, Chicago, Ill.
�  �  �  �  � 





Alabama, 6; Arkansas, 9; California, 6; 12; Connecticut, 54; Florid?, 12; Georgia, 1; Indiana, 8; Illinois, 112; Iowa, 8; 1; Kentucky, 7; 6; Maine, 5; Maryland, 70; Massachusetts, 89; 48; Minnesota, 19; I; Nebraska, 1; New Hampshire, 7; New Mississippi, Missouri, 4; Jersey, 145; hew Mexico, 3; New York, 904; North Carolina, 10; North Dakota, 2; 217; Oklahoma, I; Oregon, 1; Pennsylvania, 554; Rhode Island, 11; South Carolina, 1; Tennessee, 1; Texas, 6; Vermont, 6; Virginia, 39; Washington, 2; West Virginia, 15; Wyoming, 1; Wisconsin, 35; Canada, 1; District of Columbia, 61. Total number of delegates 2,506.’
The above figure does not represent the total number of delegates present in Washington since some delegations failed to turn in all their registration cards with their credentials. In addition, many delegations conducted their own registrations and overlooked certain of the questions so that we must nive an incomplete Political, Fraternal, and Trade accounting on the questions: Male and Female present-Negro and Union Affiliation.


Total of delegations American Federation of Labor ______________________________________ Trade Union Unity League Shop Delegates Rank File Professional Unions- _ _ _ Unemployed Organizations- ________________________________________ Fraternal Organizations Political PartiesFarm Organizations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other 742 338 221 207 37 145 517 578 53 40 370 2,506 Trade Union American Federation of Labor Trade Union Unity League--Number Unemployed 6 Months 6 Months to 1 to 2 Over 2 ________ 742 397 291 1,046 329 189 206 397 463 1,777


Federation of Labor Cascades County Trades and Labor Assembly, Montana; Central Labor Union of Buck’s County, Pennsylvania; Central Labor Union of Pa.; Central Labor Union of Newport, Rhode Island; Central Trades Council of Jeanette, Pa.; Providence Central Federated Union, Rhode Island; United Labor Council of Tarentum, and vicinity, Pa.; United Textile Workers Interstate Council; Painter District Council No. 10 of Newark, N. J. And from locals of: Actors and Artists of America, Ass’n; Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ International; Barbers’ International Union, Journeymen; Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers International; Boot and Shoe Workers Union; Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America; Bricklayers, Mason and Plasterers, International.; Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Workers of America; Building Service Employees, International; Carmen of America, Brotherhood Railway; Carpenters and Joiners of America; Cigarmakers’ International Union; Clerks’ International Protective Association, Retail; Clerks, National Federation of Post Office; Clothing Workers of America, Amalgamated; Engineers, International Union of Operating; Garment Workers of America, United; Garment Workers’ Union, International; Glass Cutters’ League of America, Window; Government Employees, American Federation; Granite Cutters International Assooiation; Hatters of North America, United; Hod Car­ riers, Building and Common Laborers’ Union; Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Beverage Dispensers International; Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, Amalga­ mated; Lathers’ International Union of Wood, Wire and Metal. Laundry Workers International Union; Leather Workers, United tional; Lithographers’ International Protective and Beneficial Association; Ma­ chinists, International Association of; Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated; Metal Workers International Association; Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Inter.; Mine Workers of America, United; Moulders’ Union of North America, Int.; Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America Brotherhood; Plasterers’ International Association; Printing Pressmen’s and Assistants; Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers; Stereotypers’ and typers; Switchmen’s Unions of North America; Teachers, American Federation; Telegraphers Union of North America; Textile Workers of America; Tobacco Workers International Union; Typographical Union, International; Upholsterers’ International Union; Protective Association, American Wire.



Federal Labor Union; Federal Labor Fisher Lodge; Federal Labor 18651; Federal Labor Battery Workers; Federal Labor Cleaners and Dyers; Federal Steel 18857; Federal Local 14659 Brass Bobbins Union; Labor Union, Federal Union, Amalgamated Lace Operators; Federal Local 19114; Battery Workers 18551; Citrus Workers, United; Cleaners and Dyers 18233; Casting Workers, National; Lead Oil Varnish and Paint Workers; Makers 11016, United; Radio Television 18368; Shafting Workers Union; Suitcase and Bag Makers; USTM Lodge; Woolen Worsted 1586.

Alteration Painters; Amalgamated Chiropractors Association; American News­ Guild; Association of Laboratory Technicians; Associated Industrial % orkers; Association of Philadelphia Co. Relief Board Employees; Association of Federation Workers; Building Trades Group; Building Service Union; Brotherhood Shoe and Allied Crafts; Car and Foundry Workers; Columbia Metal Stamp­ ing Products Workers; Construction Workers Independent Union; Coopers Independent Union; Dental Society Northern District; Dental Technicians Equity; Farmers and Workers Unempl. Union; Federation of Art Workers; Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians; Fish Workers Union; Furniture Workers Union; Hebrew Painters and Paperhangers; Independ­ ent Aircraft Workers of America; Independent Building Trades Union; Independ­ ent United Floor Workers Union; Independent House Wreckers; Laundry Cleaners and Dyers; Local Union of Plymouth; Mechanics Educational Society; National Association of Substitute Postal Employees; National Leather Workers; Nurses and Workers League; Pharmacists Union; Postal Workers of America; Progressive Miners Union; Radio and Metal Workers Union; Sharecroppers; Table Makers Union; Taxi Drivers Union; Textile Trimming Workers; Tool and Die Makers Club; Union of Private Teachers; Union Mechanics Associa­ tion; United Anthracite Miners of Pennsylvania; United Building Trades Federa­ tion; United Shoe and Leather Workers; United Telegraphers of America; Waterheaters Union of Pittsburgh.

Trade Union Unity League; Trade Union Unity Council, N. Y.; Agricultural and Cannery Workers Industrial Union; Domestic Workers Industrial Union; Food Workers Industrial Union; Furniture Workers Industrial Union; Laundry Workers, Industrial Union; Marine Workers Industrial Union; National Miners Union; Needle Trades Industrial Union; Office Workers Union; Packing House Workers Industrial Union; Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union.

Catholic Union, Pennsylvania.

Amalgamated Clothing Workers; American Federation of Teachers; Cap Makers; Carpenters Union; Classroom Teachers; Cleaners and Dyers; Cloak Makers; Shop; Goldsheer Dress Company; Hatters; International Long­ shoremen Association; International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union; Israel Zion Hospital; Knit Goods Workers; Local Workers Division of Painters and Group; NewsPaperhangers; Logansferry Blacklisted Coal Miners; paper Group of Yorkville Advance; Painters Local; Pocket Book Workers; Shop Committee Altro Workshop, Inc.; Shop Easy Dress Shop Group; United Car­ penters and Machinists Club.

Actors Emergency Association.; Amalgamated Labor League of Virginia; American Workers Union; Associated Independent Workers; Associated Pro­ Workers Association; Chinese fessional, Office Emergency Employees; Unemployed Alliance; Community Club; Community Workers Council; Con­ ference of Unemployed Groups; Cooperative Workers of New Castle, Pa.; County Relief Workers Union; Crawford County Labor Association; Dancers Emergency Ass’n; Elmont Unemployed Workers Association; Erie County




Lodging House; E. R. A. Workers Protective Union; Farmer Labor Union; Federation of Ohio; Federation of Unemployed; F. E. R. A. Teachers Organiza­ tion; Gibson County F. E. R. A.; Home Buro E. A.; Illinois Workers Alliance; Indiana Unemployed Union; Irvington Workmen’s Relief Association; Italian Unemployed Groups; Labor Relief Organization of Wisconsin; Leonia Unemployed Relief Association; Maryland Unemployed Leagues; Metuchen Mutual Welfare; National Unemployment Council, U. S. A. (338 Delegates representing 150 cities) ; National Unemployment Council, Women’s Committees; Niles Unemployed Union; Northampton, Pa., Unemployed Citizen’s League; Ohio Unemployed Leagues; Owosso Chamber of Labor; Professional Workers Project Welfare Clubs; Public Relief Investigators; Public Works and Unemployed Leagues; Public Works and Unemployed Union; Recreation Leaders Association; Relief Association and Workers Clubs; Relief Workers League; Relief Workers and Unemployed Committees. Relief Workers Union; Resident Workers Protective League of Mansfield; Right-to-Live Club; Stick-Together-Club; Summit Unemployed League; Social Security League of Ohio; Citizens League of Seattle, Wash.; Unem­ ployed Club; Unemployed Conference; Unemployed Council of Metal Trades Workers Ind. Union; Unemployed Council of Needle Trades; Unemployed Leagues; Unemployed League of Allentown; Unemployed Leagues of New Jersey; Unem­ ployed League of Bethlehem, Pa.; Unemployed League of Columbus; Unem­ ployed League of Emaus, Pa.; Unemployed League of Parsons, Pa.; Unemploved League of Plymouth, Pa.; Unemployed League of Pa.; Unemployed and Workers Organizations; Unemployed and Relief Association ; Unemployed Relief Workers Union; Unemployed Relief Association of N. J.; Unemployed ‘Teachers Association; Unemployed Union; Unemployed Workers Union; Unem­ ployed Workers Association of Michigan; Unemployed Workers Union of Farrell, ; United Mine Workers of America-Unemployment Council; United Citizens League of Ohio; United Unemployed Relief Workers Association of N. J.; Unemployed Railroad United Workers League; Washington Co. (Tenn.) Workers League; West Side Workers Welfare Association; Workers Committee of Milwaukee Co.; Workers Committee on Unemployment; Workers Council of Kenton County; Workers Protective Association of Lancaster, Pa.; Workers Union of the World; Workers Protective Union of Ohio.

American Ass’n Fort Duquesne Lodge; American Democratic Club; American Lithuanian Literary Ass’n; American Lithuanian Workers Ass’n; Association Boleslevs the Great; Association of Lithuanian Workers (L. D. S.); Bricklayers Progressive Benevolent Club; Bridesburg Polish Club; Bohemian Sick and Death Benefit; Brotherhood Hebrew Painters Aid Ass’n; Bulgarian Macedonian Campo; Hungarian Federation; Columbus Italian Citizens Club; Columbus Hungarian (Columbus, Ohio) Concordia Partinus; Croatian Fraternal Union; C. S. P. J. Grand Lodge; Czech Catholic Society of Czech Progressive Federation; Czecho-Slovak Society of America, Buffalo; Society of America, Grand Lodge of Ohio; Czechoslovak Fraternal Hillside, N. J.; First Aid Hungarian Sick Benefit Society; Federation of Italian Societies, East Buffalo; Federation of Italian Societies; Finnish Literary Federation; Finnish Workers Federation; Finnish Workers Federation, Youth Section; George Washington, Betegsezodzro; German Sick and Death Benefit; Hungarian Aid Society; Hungarian of Trenton; Haulick of Buffalo, Buffalo, N. Y.; Hungarian Church and Social Federation; Hungarian Federation Culture; Hungarian Reformed Church; Hungarian St. James Society; Workers Federation of Ohio; I. A. G. T. Traja No. 17; Ind. Order of Templars, Burnside, Conn. Order Sons of Italy; International Workers Order (215 delegates 50 cities) ; Italian Progressive Institute; Jewish National Workers Alliance; J. S. K. J.; Karvygospar and Hungarian Workers Federation; Kossuth Association; Kracsin-Fraternal-Sussardi; Kranken Unterstitzung Verein; Lemko Association; Lidumila J. C. D.; Lithuanian No. 29 Supreme Lodge; Lithuanian Workers Order; Lithuanian Workers Society; Lithuanian Sons and Daughters; Lodge of Daughters of Liberty; Lodge of Lodge 202 F. Union; L. S. L. A. Supreme Lodge; Magyar Home; Mansfield Liederkrantz; Masonic Lodge; Mutalista Obrera Mexicana; National Slovak Society* Na­ tional Slovak Society Supreme Lodge; No. Hungarian Singing; Polish American Citizens League of Pennsylvania; Polish American Youth League; Polish Chamber of Labor; Polish Crown Assn’.;



Polish Peoples Home Ass’n.; Polish White Eagles; Polish Workmen’s Aid Federation of Ohio. Polonja Society; Rakozi Benefit Ass’n; Rovnort-Benefit-Baltimore; American Citizens Ass’n; Russian Benevolent Society; Russian National Mutual Aid Society; Serbian National Alliance; Scandinavian Workers Unity League; Sick Benefit Aid Ass’n; Sick Benefit Society; Slavist Lodge; Slovak Ass’n of Trenton; Slovak Evangelical Union, A. C. of America; Slovak National Benefit Society; Slovak Women’s Club; S. N. P. J.; S. N. P. T.-T. K. J.-Export, Pa.; S. P. J. (Martha Washington Branch) ; S. S. C. N. of A., Trinidad, Colo.; Society of S. Martino; Society of Old Czech Colonists; Sons of Italy Grand Lodge; Society Italy; Socitia Phillippo Paligsiodi-vasto; South Slav Fra­ ternal and Cultural Organizations; Trenton-Hungarian Businessmen’s Ass’n; T. Y. M. Benevolent Ass’n; Ukranian Society Bukovina; Ukranian men’s Ass’n; United Czechoslovak Society; United Hungarian Societies; United Russian League; United Ukranian Toilers; Sokolova Y. J. C. D.; Vytaut Lithuanian Benefit Society; Workmen’s Circle; Workmen’s Sick and Death Benefit Fund. (Lack of time and space prevents a listing of each local as of these various unions and Fraternal bodies. Such a listing is being prepared and will be sub­ sequently published.)


Farm Holiday Association; Farmers National Committee for Action; Farmers National Weekly; Free Acres Association; National Conference Agricultural, Lumber and Rural Workers; Ohio Farmers League; United Farmers League; United Farmers Protective Association.

Council Cooperative Ass’n.; Associated Cooperative Trading Ass’n; Consumers’ Tradesmens Labor League; Farmers Cooperative Merchants Ass’n; Hungarian Workers Home; South Carolina Barter Exchange; Workers Colony Corporation, Bronx; Workers and Farmers Cooperative Unity.

Anathot Spiritual Church; Baptist Church of Washington, C.; Father Divine’s Peace Mission; First Hungarian Baptist Church; Holy Ghost Assembly of Run, Pa.; Hungarian Baptist Church, Cleveland, Ohio; Hungarian Reformist Church; (Church) Benefit Society; United Church Societies of Farrell, Pa.; Y. W. C. A. of Washington, D. Y. W. C. A. Nursery School of Charleston, W. Va.; Y. W. C. A. Industrial Dept. of Pennsylvania.

Chorus and LDS; Allentown Workers Club; Ardelan Social Club; Ar­ menian Workers Club; Balkan Workers Club; Boro Park Cultural Club; Bridge Plaza Workers Club; Bronx Park Center; Bronx Workers Club; Brownsville Workers Center; Bulgarian Workers Club; Canarsie Youth Chilean Workers Club* Cli Grand Youth Club Columbus Italian City Club* Croatian Workers Culture Czech Democratic Club* Downtown Workers Club; East New ‘York Workers’ Club; Estonia Workers Club; Fellow Craft Club; Finnish Workers Club; Fraternal Athletic Society; Freiheit Gesangs Ferein; German Painters Club; Grand Workers Club; Greek Workers Educational Club; Harlem Jewish Workers Club; Harlem Needle Workers Club; Harmonica Polish-American Society of Ohio; Irish Citizens Club; Hinsdale Workers Club; Hungarian Workers Club; Italian American Club; Italian Workers 8enter; Jewish Cultural League; Jewish Educational Club; John Reed Clubs; Jugoslav Club; Lithuanian Club; Lithuanian Music Hall Ass’n; Lithuanian Workers Club; Middle Bronx Workers Club; Progressive Club; New Dance Group; New England Youth Clubs; Readers Clubs; Pen and Hammer; Phoenix Park Club; Pierre Degeyter Club; Polish Workers Club; Proletpen; Prospect Workers Club; Roosevelt Workers Club; Roumanian Club; Round Table Discussion Club; Roxbury Civic Club; Roxbury Workers Club; Workers Club; navian Workers Club; Social Labor Club; Spanish Workers Center; Spanish Workers Club; Workers League; S artacus Workers Club; Tampa Williamsburg Workers Club; Turkish Workers Club; West ffide Workers


* 1175

Workers Club; Workers Chorus of Philadelphia; Workers Cultural Club; Workers Cultural League; Workers Self-Educational Club; Workers Social League of Massachusetts; Zukunft Workers Club.

School for Workers; Alumnae Association of Bryn Mawr Summer School of Women Workers; Benedict College Club; Commonwealth College; Labor College; Fellowship House; Hunter College Bulletin; Jewish High School; Labor Research Association; New York City Summer School for Workers; New World Educational Association; Parents Association Bronx House; Parent Teachers Association of P. S. No. 60; Steinmetz Club of Cooper Union; The Workers School; Washington Irving Evening School; West Virginia Labor Summer Schools.


Baltimore Urban League; Baltimore Workers League; Industrial Dept. Federation of Colored Women; Joint Committee on National Recovery; League of Struggle for Negro Rights; National Negro League Council; National Urban League; New Negro Alliance; Warren Urban League; Young Women’s Christian Association.

Artists Association; Artists Union; Council of Allied Professionals; Dental Society; Economic Federation of Dentists; International League of Writers; League of Allied Medical Professions; Medical Society of Bronx County; Music Teachers Association; National Film and Photo League; Nursery School League; Playwrights Association; United Artists League; Teacher’s Discussion Group; Theatre Collective.

A. F. L. Trade Union Committee for Unemployment Insurance; American Association of Social Workers; Association of Brooklyn Federation Workers; Association of White Collar Workers; Association of Workers in Social Agencies; Central Registration Bureau of C. W. A.; Czechoslovak Association for Unem­ ployment Insurance; Fraternal Federation for Social Insurance; Interprofessional Association for Social Insurance; Italian Organizations for Social Insurance; Italian Soceity for Social Insurance of Pennsylvania; Jewish Conference for Social Insurance of Pennsylvania; Jewish United Front Committee for Social Insurance; Jugoslav Association for Unemployment Insurance; New York Association of Federation Workers; Northumberland Inter-County Organization for Unemploy­ ment Insurance; Social Workers Discussion Club; Slovak Fraternal Federation for Social Insurance; University Settlement Rank and File; Workers Unemploy­ ment Insurance Club.

Alma Mathews House; Birth Control Federation; Bronx League for the Pro­ tection Children; Graduate School for Jewish Social Work; Harlem House; Hebrew Orphan Asylum; Hebrew Sheltering and Guardian Society; Jewish Social Service Association; Board of Guardians; Lavenberg House; League for the Protection of Children; Psychological Exchange; Wes tley Everest.

tin Property Owners Protective Association; City Federation Garden Club; Tenants ASSO’S, 2830 Olinville Ave., Knickerbocker Village Bronx, N. Y.; Small Home and Land Owners of New Jersey; Small Home Owners Federation of Illinois; Small Home and Land Owners Federation of Ohio.

Alliance of Lithuanian Organizations of New Jersey; Bergen County Conference for Unemployment Insurance; Bronx Neighborhood Sponsoring Committee; Chicago Conference Lithuanian Citizens; Conference of Jewish Organizations; Conference of Russian Organizations; Conference of Lithuanian Benefit Societies of Pennsylvania; Conference of Hungarian Organizations of Corapolis, Pa.; Conference of Fraternal Organizations of Monnessen, Pa.; Conference of 52 Organ­ izations of Ohio; Conference of Croatian Organizations of Pittsburgh; Conference




of Polish Organizations of New Jersey; Connecticut Local Convention; Czech United Front Committee of 82 Organizations; Workers Czechoslovak Action Committee; East Side Neighborhood Association; Finnish Front Committee; Fitchburg Conference; General Conference of Buffalo; Greek Federation; Hancock United Front; Hungarian Conference of Buffalo; Hungarian United Front of Columbus; Hungarian United Front of Milwaukee; Hungarian Association of Carteret; Italian United Front of Ohio; Jewish Workers Clubs of Chicago; Jewish Conference of Cleveland, Ohio; Lithuanian Unity Con­ ference; Long Island Sponsoring Committee; Mass Meeting of Coney Island; Milliner United Front; Mass Neighborhood Meeting of Philadelphia; Middle Village syponsoring Committee New York City; Mount Eden Sponsoring mittee; Neighborhood Committees of Action; Neighborhood Group 14 and 15, New York City; New Jersey Sponsoring Committee.; New York City Sponsoring Committee; 180th Street Sponsoring Committee; United Front Conference; and Polish United Front of Providence. Roumanian Conference Organizations; Russian Workers Organizations; Scandinavian Workers Unity League; South Slav United Front of Ohio; Slovak Workers United Front of Wisconsm; Sponsoring Committee of Columbus; Sponsoring Committee of Philadelphia; United Front Conference of Chicago; United Front Czech Organizations; United Front Conference of Jamestown; United Jewish Fraternal Committee;, United Front Conference of Cleveland; United Front Conference of Bridgeport, Ohio; United Front of Finnish Organiza­ tions of Cleveland; United Front of Organizations of Dayton, Ohio; United Front of Hungarian Organizations of Lehigh Valley; United Front of Hungarian Organizations of Allentown; United Action Committee of Erie; United Front of Slovak Organizations of Throop, Pa.; United Czechoslovakian Organizations of ; United Lithuanian Organizations of New Jersey; United Front of German Societies of Wisconsin; United Slovak Church Organ­ izations of Wisconsin; United Front Conference of Polish Organizations of Ohio; Ukrainian United Front of Pennsylvania; Washington Arrangements Committee; Westchester Mass Meeting; West End Sponsoring Committee.

American Legion Post 108; 33rd Division of National Guard; Veterans Rank and File Committee; Voters Veteran League; Workers Ex-servicemen’s League.

Czech Ladies’ Club (Grand Lodge) ; Daughters of Armenia; Finnish Women’s Workers Clubs; Finnish Working Women; Glenville Council Women’s Federa­ tion; Jewish Mothers Council; Ladies’ Auxiliary of Unemployed League of Allentown, Pa.; Ladies’ Auxiliary of Unemployed Lea ue of Bethlehem, Pa.; Slovak Women’s Club; United Council of Working
8lass Women; Women’s Auxiliary of C. W. A. Union; Women’s League of Philadelphia; Working Wo­
men’s Committee; Working Women of Hamtramch.


American Youth Congress; Chicago University National Students League; Hunter College Liberal Club; Liberal Club of George Washington University; Politics Club of the College of the City of New York; University of Virginia National Students League; University of Wisconsin National Students League; Young Communist League.

American League against and Fascism; Organization; Comite Pro Porto Rico; Committee for Protection of Foreign Born; Committee for Support of Southern Textile Workers; Correspondents for Canadian Workers International Press; Crusader News Service; Friends of the Soviet Union; Labor Defense; Joint Conference Against Discrimination; Labor Advancement Association; National Committee for the Defense of Political Prisoners; Nature Friends; Philippine Anti-Imperialist League; Porto Rican Anti-Imperialist League; Polish Chamber of Commerce; The Press League; Red Builders; Tom Mooney Defense Committee; United Front Supporters; Workers Defense Corn mittee; Workers International Relief.



Estimates of funds available for unemployment and social insurance

[All figures in thousands] 1933 I. Source: Individual income _________ __ ____________ __ __________ ________ __ y Estate Corporate tax, net income 25 percent __________________________ ’ 626: 520 Corporate tax, net surplus, 25 percent _________________________ Expenditures on war preparations ______________________________ ’ 750, ooo Total ___________ ___ _______________ ____________________________ II. Individual income Estate tax, 75 Corporate tax, net income, 25 percent __________________________ Corporate tax, net surplus, 30 percent _________________________ Expenditures on war preparations- _____________________________ 626,520 2, ooo, 000 -----------I 538,278 y, ’ 533: 278 615; 273


Estimated on graduated scale approximating British rate but higher than the British rate for incomes from $500,000 to This should be a graduated tax averaging 25 percent. Surplus and undivided profits less deficit: millions; millions. ’ As of Aug. TAX INCOME, 1928 Total net in- Tax rate come reported

Revenue available

Income classes:

______________________ ________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________________________ and over- _ _ 1, 670: ;;;, E 000


16 22 ;: ii ii: 2 > ;;: g 259,701) 000

Tax collected

________________ -

Income classes: Under $l,OOO-$2,999 ____ __ ___ _______ ______ ________ ------------------------------------------------------_ -----_ _ ----------------------------$560,000 under and over Total Tax Additional returns ________________________________________ ________________ Returns of corporations submitting balance sheets, 1928 (all returns): Net surplus (after deduction of deficit) p. Statistics of Income, 1928, 32. _______ ____ ___ ___ __________ __ __ ____ 2,

:: 2 2 2 25 ---------263,



Estimates of funds available for unemployment and social insurance-Continued
TAX INCOME, 1932 Total net income reported Tax rate

--Revenue available




65 75

Income tax



Additional revenue _______________________________________ ________________ I

1. Returns of corporations submitting balance sheets for 1932 (all returns): Cash (in till or deposits in bank) Investments, tax-exempt-Investments other than tax exempt ________ - _______________________________________ Surplus and undivided __________ ___ ____ __ ____ _ _____ __ _______ - _ _ ____ __ Net surplus (less deficit of ______ _ __________ ______ __ ____________ ___ _ __ 2. Returns of corporations showing net income (1932): ------Total gross income- _ _ __ Total net Income tax __________ - ____ TAX INCOME, 1933 Total net in- Tax rate come reported

3 3 4

Revenue available

827. 000 850, 000 246, 778, 182, 000 766, 000 681, 253, :iz 511,


559, %

75 --


Tax Additional revenue ________


Total net income reported--,Income Excess-profits taxStatistics of Income, 1932, p. 160. Statistics of Income, 1932. Revised figure as given in Statistics of Income, 1933, preliminary report. 14.1 percent. ------




Estimates of funds available for unemployment and social insurance-continued

ESTATE TAX Jan. 1-Dec. 31, Jan. 1-Dec. 31, Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1928 1932 1933 Gross Tax Percent to Tax Percent to REVENUE AVAILABLE Average 25 percent Gross estate: 1928 Net estate: 1928 _______ __ ______ ___ _ ___ ___ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ Average 50 percent

$41J g5g1 YO? 2. 1

$23,674, $23J 674J .

415,000 $828,302, kf $61J 415J .

75 percent




515: 239: 000

of income tax (married person, no dependents, all income. from salary)
[Conversion units: 1 pound

France, 1

Germany, 1 mark = $0.23821 Percent of tax to net income United States ii 0.07 > ;: l:*:S 17: 20 30.10 52.72 57.11 Britain France Germany

-z 14.22 16. 29 18.62 22.95 29.47 - 39.30 48.10 61.58 63.91 7.90 3.38 15.84 8.51 12.20 18.11 17.15 21.59 26 02 22.02 25.25 29.89 31.26 34.46 38.04 . 39.78 47.43 . 45.13 53.65 47.44 53.93 49.49 53.97 49.74 -


Comparison of death taxes in the United States and Great a Britain (entire estate to widow) . .
[Source: Preliminary report of Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, relative to Federai and State taxation and duplication therein p. - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- -- - - _ _ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - ---- - -- --- ----- -- - - --- -- -- - - - - - - ----- - -- -- - -- ----- ---- ---- ---­ United States .0 z : 0 ;:353 4. 75 6. 50 7 . 8. 50 9.25 11.75 15.77 45 22.99 30.94 ; 4 :s 6 2 ii . 21 23 32; 43: 51 Great Britain -

- _ - -- -- - - -- -- -- - - - _ -- _ _ _ _


-- - -------- --- --- --

-- - --- -- -- --- - ------

$200.000~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - $300,000 - 8500,000 $600,000 ____________________ - ______ - ____________________________ ________ $800,000 ______________________________ - ------ ---------------- -- ________ - __________ Conversion:




The following estimates have been prepared by the research section of the chairInterprofessional Association for Social Insurance, Dr. Joseph M. man (economist and lecturer, New York). They should be read in connection with the statistical material presented by Dr. in his testimony on H. R. on Labor on February 4, 1935. 2827 before the House To determine the cost of the social insurance which would be provided in H. R. 2827 requires several estimates, which should be used with caution. In the first place, the United States has no current basis for accurately the num­ ber of the unemployed. This point is discussed and amplified both in Dr. man’s testimony just cited and in the testimony filed by the national chairman of the Interprofessional for Social Insurance (Mary Van with the House Committee on Labor on February 5, 1935. In lieu of exact data, the best possible estimate has been but it should be pointed out that it the procedure of making the estimate which should be studied, rather than the exact figures. The extent of unemplyment changes from time to time, and therefore the figure used today might not be true a month later. The second and more important point requiring caution relates to the esti­ mate of the effect of social insurance upon purchasing power, and its consequent results in decreasing the amount of unemployment. This point will be discussed more fully later in this foreword, but it should be clear at once that no experience in this country is available to the extent to which an increase in consumers’ power for those in the lower income groups would stimulate produc­ tion and employment. Having in mind these cautions, it may be said at once that-if there be unemployed, the annual gross cost, after taking care otherwise of those who should receive old-age pensions and those who are unemployed because of sick­ ness or disability, and eliminating those under 18 years of age, to whom the workers’ bill does not apply, would be Deducting from this the estimated decrease in the cost of unemployment insurance on account of the reemployment of workers following the establishment of a social-insurance program-$5,340,000,000-and adding to it the cost of old-age pensions, sickness, disability, and accident insurance and maternity insurance, and deducting present annual expenditures for relief amounting to we would have a net annual increase for the Federal Government imposed by the provi­ sions of the workers’ bill amounting to If the number of unemployed be equal to the average number estimated by us as unemployed in 1934, as then the annual net increase in cost, after deducting present expenditures for relief and estimating the reemployment which would follow adequate social insurance, would be If for safety’s sake no estimate be made of decrease of cost through reemploy­ ment, there would have to be added to this net cost the sum of if there be unemployed, or if there be unem­ ployed. In all these figures it is necessary to point out that the estimates of cost are merely an indication of the present annual loss suffered by the workers of America through unemployment for the various hazards covered by the workers’ bill. It should be pointed out that for any given number of unemployed it is neces­ sary to go through the process of calculation followed in these two estimates. It is not possible merely to divide costs per million, since, for example, the cost of old-age pensions would not be proportionate to the total number of the unem­ ployed. What has been done in these estimates is to attempt to show what factors enter in, always with the understanding that much of the data must represent a guess, without adequate statistical basis. There is urgent need for the taking of a current census of the unemployed. It has already been pointed out that the great unknown is the effect which a social-insurance program would have upon reemployment. In making the estimates which follow, it is assumed that the entire amount of benefits paid under the workers’ bill would appear in the market as new purchasing power. Of this total, 60 percent, according to the calculation shown, would become available as wages and salaries. On the basis of given average wages and salaries, it can be estimated how many persons could be reemployed, and this would result in a corresponding decrease in the number of unemployed eligible for benefits and, therefore, in a reduction of costs.



Thus we arrive at the following figures: On the basis of as the number of unemployed, the annual gross cost of the workers’ bill would amount to From this sum should be currently, in 1934, spent by various governmental deducted the agencies to relieve unemployment and in payment of old-age and other benefits to the dependent classes. That leaves a total of as the net benefits under the workers’ bill. This sum, as new purchasing power, would as new pay rolls and reemployment-60 percent of provide This leaves a balance of as the sum that would have to be provided, in addition to current expenditures for relief to meet the as cost of unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, etc., counting the number of unemployed today. On a basis of unemployed, that sum would be which, together with present expenditures for relief, would add up to $7,436,000,000 as the total cost of the program called for under H. R. 2527. Once more, however, note should be taken of the uncertainty in the allowance made for the amount of reemployment that might follow the adoption of the workers’ bill. The allowance made assumes an amount of reemployment in proportion to the amount of new purchasing power thus made available. Thus it is assumed that every dollar paid as benefits under the workers’ bill would go wholly to the market as new purchasing power for consumers’ goods. But it is conceiv­ able that a goodly portion of these sums might go to pay debts, and some smaller fractions might go into hiding for a “rainy day.” Again, it is calculated that for every dollar paid out in benefits 60 cents would turn up in the form of new wages and salaries. Only to the extent that this may be true may we expect the return to work of a proportionate number of the unemployed. But there is no way of telling whether reemployment to this extent may be expected under present-day circumstances. In the first place, we have not taken into account the amount of commodity stocks on hand and how rapidly they would be used up and how soon workers would have to be put back to work to increase and replenish them. In the second place, there is no way of estimating with any degree of accuracy the extent of industrial rationalization and technological advance that have taken place in this country in the course of the past 6 years of depression. Accord­ ing to recent findings of the National Industrial Conference Board (bulletin of Dec. 10, compared to the 1923-25 average, current pay rolls stood, in October last, at 60 percent, employment at 78.6 percent, and output per manhour at 129.5 percent. This means that for the sampling industries covered in the National Industrial Conference Board survey, 61 workers can now produce as much as 100 did years ago. Thirty-nine percent of the workers must now remain unemployed or find employment in new occupations. A similarly dis­ tressing situation recently reported by the division of research and planning of the National Recovery Administration as existing in the automobile industry. Our estimates of the amount of reemployment, therefore, must be taken as purely and should be considered mainly as illustrations of possibil­ ities rather than as probabilities. Finally, our estimate of total costs of the program for social insurance under the workers’ bill should be compared with the amount the workers have lost in wages and salaries since the beginning of the depression. According to estimates published in the Survey of Current Business for January 1935, page 17, total income paid out to labor since 1929 was as follows (in millions): 1930 $52,700 Loss from 1929 _____________________________ ________ ____ $42 , 1931 $40,700 12,000 1932 $31,500 21,200 $29,300 23,400

And the total loss in the first 4 years of the depression has amounted to $60,900,000,000. It is with these huge losses sustained by American workers during these 4 years that the costs of security provided by the workers’ bill, H. 2827, should be compared.






(Prepared by Research Section of Interprofessional Association for Social In­ surance for hearings before House Committee on Labor with reference to Workers’ Unemployment, Old Age, and Social Insurance bill, H. R. 2827, February 1935) estimates have been prepared: A relates to a hypothetical unit of unemployed; B is calculated for the current estimate of average unemployment in 1934, namely, the details of which were entered into the record of proceedmgs before the House Committee on Labor, February 4, 1935, by Joseph economist, on behalf of the Interprofessional As­ sociation for Social Insurance. Estimate A Number of persons unemployed (hypothetical) _________ _____ Deductions: 1. Estimated number of unemployed under 320,000 years of age (basis 1930 census) _ _ ______ 2. Estimated number of unemployed who mill replace workers years of age and over retiring on old-age pensions- ______ _ _ 2, 250, 000 3. Estimated number because of 250,000 -sickness or disability___________ Balance of unemployedI. Annual cost of unemployment insurance - _____ by


II. Estimated decrease on account of reemployment of workers, following establishment of social-insurance III. Annual net cost of unemployment insurance- ______ IV. Annual cost of old-age pensionsAnnual cost of sickness, disability, and accident VI. Annual cost of maternity insurance __________________ Total annual cost- _ _ ___________________ VII. VIII. Present annual expenditures- _______________________ I X . Annual net increase in cost, _ _________________ Estimate B Average number of persons unemployed in 1934, all ages _ _ _ _ _ Estimated number of unemployed, under 18’ 550,600 years of age (basis, 1930 census) _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 2. Estimated number of unemployed who will replace workers 65 years of and over retiring on old-age pensions (see p. 4) . _ _ 2, 250, 000 3. Estimated number of unemployed because 250,000 of sickness or disability (see p. ______ Balance of unemployed- _____ - _________________ by - - - - - - - $10, II. Estimated decrease on account of reemployment of . workers, following establishment of social-insurance 7, I. cost of unemployment insurance 3,


$3, 121, 000,000

Estimate B-Continued Annual net cost of unemployment insurance---, III. IV. Annual cost of old-age pensions ______________________ V. Annual cost of sickness, disability, and accident insurance (seep. VI. Annual cost of maternity insurance ______ ________ VII. Total annual cost- _ _ _ VIII. Present annual expenditures IX. ________________ _ _ _ _ ___________

3, 875, 000,000 5,

Annual net increase in cost- _ _________________ Estimated annual wage loss of unemployed

[Based on average annual wage and salary rates for 1932 in National Income Report 1934 unemployment table Annual wage or salary Loss of earnings (in millions) c~~~i­ fied ------$2,210 -------$1,339 2,241 2,297 ------1,409 _______ 1,320 1,245 ______ 1,958 1,477 ---me--1,400 -------------------1,441.0 248.1 ________


Wage Salary cam,­ Wage earners earners earners Agriculture ______________ Mines and quarries­ _ _ _ _ Electric light and power and gas _ Manufacturing­ _ ________ Construction­ ___________ Transportation- ____ ____ _ Communication _________ Wholesale and retail-­ _ __ Finance- _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Government: Public education. Service: Recreation _______ (b) Personal _________ (c) Domestic ________ Professional _ _ _ _ _ Miscellaneous­ _ _ Miscellaneous industries1,847



Salary earners


classi­ fied

231 _-

18 ________


$645 909 -----876

2,345 959 ---

--__ 73 ________ 108 -------1,409 -------253 -2,200 427 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99 - - - - - - - 185 208 460 1,123 373 8:: 4,849


1,103. s



2,739.0 ________ 836.1 ____ __


-e---m-­ _-____-_



146.2 259.0



-------------- - - - - - - - -

Total ____ ____ ____ _ _ 5,382 Total wage and salary loss-_------------------ - - - _ - - Unemployed entrepre­ neurs­ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total __________ ____ Average loss- ____ _ _ -------

1,382 ---------- ---------1,045 ---------670 1,416 ------1,105 - - - - - - 1,285 ----------------------

w;. ; 752: 4 528.2 187.3 1, 119. 2



-- ----

110 --------------------e-e-973

S. 124, National Income, 1929-32.
73d Cong., 2d 1929 rate; 1932 rate only $352.
At annual average loss $973.

I. (a) Number of persons aged 65 and over (1930 Census) _ __ __ _ _ - 6, 634, 000 (b) Estimated number of persons aged 65 and over in 1934 (Report of President’s Committee on Economic Security, p. II. (a) Number of persons aged 65 and over, gainfully occupied ______ (b) Estimated number of persons aged 65 and over who were gainfully occupied in 1934 (average)_____ - ______ 2, 500,000 N OTE .-II (b) to II ( a in same ratio as I (b) to I (a). III. (a) Estimated number of gainfully occupied persons who would be eligible to retire upon enactment of the Workers’ Bill- - 2, 250, 000 allowance for entrepreneurs of sub­ stantial means (U. S. Census estimate, letter to com­ mittee, I. P. A.



IV. (a) N;;TbEfully occupied persons aged 65 and over (I (b)------_-----_------------------------ -----Estimated- number eligible for old-age pensions (males, females, __________ -- __________ .- l o - p e r c e n t allowance for those of substantial means. (a) Number of gainful1y occupied persons in III (a) plus husbands or wives aged 65 and over (777,000, V (g)) _______ -- __________ Gainfullv males (less entrepreneurs) _ - _ 1, %X& 0: females- _ _ - __________ __ 000 Gainfully occupied males, married-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1, Gainfully occupied males, married, whose wives are 65 and over (assumed not gainfully occu­ 673,000 pied)__________-_-___--------------------104,000 Gainfully occupied females, married- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ Gainfully occupied females, married, whose hus­ bands are 65 and over (assumed not gainfully 104,000 _ _ __ VI.’ (a) Balance of married persons among nongainfully occupied (d)+(e)---- ______ Ba$nce) of males, 104,000 (IV (b) ------------BaFyce o-f females, (IV (b) ­ e VI (b) _________ -- ____ -----~Married males in VI (b) whose wives are 65 and 802,000 435,000 673,000 104,000 802,000 435,000


Of the in IV (b) these have been accounted for: (1) Wives, 65 and over, of gainfully occupied males (assumed not gainfully occupied) (V (e)) ___ __ __ _ _ __ ___ - __ - _ _ (2) Husbands, 6 5 and over, of gainfully occupied females (as­ _ __ _ _ _ - - __ ___ sumed not gainfully occupied) (V (3) Balance nongainfully occupied males 65 and over, married (VI ______________ -- _____ _____ (4) Balance nongainfully occupied females 65 and over, married Not yet accounted for: (5) Nongainfully occupied widows, widowers, divorced, single persons, aged 65 and over Annual cost of old-age pensions A. Number of gainfully occupied workers aged 65 and over, elig­ ible for old-age pensions at annual average rate of $1,200 per annum ($1,199 average annual rate, 1932, 1929-32 national income) ______ _____ B. Number of married couples nongainfully occupied, husband or both 65 or over annual pension, $676 ($10 plus $3 per Number of unmarried persons 65 or over (annual pensions, $520 ($10 per week) ______ - ____ ____ Cost of A ______ cost of ______ _____ _____ Total- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - All figures in V and VI are estimated from derived from 1930 Census.


_______ ---



Cost of sickness, accident, disability insurance Class C, 1930 Unemployment Census (persons out of a job and unable to work on account of sickness or disability) _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Would assume 250,000, since census figures are out of line with other experience. Class D, 1930 Unemployment Census (persons having jobs, but idle on account of sickness or disability) _ _ _ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 172,661

273, 588 446, 249 -

According to Report of President’s Committee on Economic Security, which states that 2.25 percent of all industrial workers are at all times incapacitated, it would seem that the total of 446,249 badly underestimates the amount of sickness and dis­ ability. Would Class C type- _ Class

250,000 750,000

CT; 200foyickness, accident, and disability insurance by $1, 200, 000,000 ----------------------------------------------NOTE.-$1,199 average annual wage or salary in 1932 (N. I. Report, 1929-32). Cost of maternity insurance Number of gainfully occupied married women between ages 15 and 44 (1930 Number of married women between ages 15 and 44 (1930 Census) 17, 836, 000 9 Birth rate per 1,000 population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Birth rate per 1,000 married women (above) - _____-___-_137.0 Number of births per annum to gainfully occupied married women 332,000 (on above 150,000 Probable number of births------------------- _____ Annual cost for 16-week benefit (150,000 by $369) _ _ _ _ __ __ $1 200 . ($1,1995zverage Present Annual Expenditures for and Private


I. Federal Government (source of statistics: General Budget Summary, Treasury Department, estimated expenditures for year ending June 30, 1935, schedule 3): [;; “c. “2 t A ___________________________________ $1,733, 208,700 . . ------------------------------------402, 363, 000 (3) Emergency conservation- _ _ ____________________ (4) Relief of unemployment- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ Public Works: _ (3) Loans and grants to municipalities- _ _ _____ ______ - ______ --_* (5) Public highways-- _ ______ Total expenditures of a relief character _____________ __ 2, 844, 313, II. State and city (basis: F. E. R. A. reports) _________ Total _____________________ - _____

Eliminated from employed, hence deduct as funds to provide employment.



Present Annual Expenditures for Unemployment, Old Age, Sickness Relief, Public and Private-Continued

1. Federal to veterans and widows (Report of Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, 1933) _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ 2. State old-age assistance (President’s Committee on Economic 3. Industrial and trade union pensions (President’s Committee on Economic Security) _ ____ ______________ _ 4. All other (rough estimate) ______ - _______________________


National Safety Council estimates for 1932 that wage loss Compensation, from occupational disabilities was probably did not exceed Practically no other sickness or weekly accident benefits were paid in the United States by governmental agencies. Total annual expenditures for relief of old age, unemploy­ $3, 875, 000, ment, and sickness at present Estimate of diminution in cost of unemployment insurance on account of reemploy­ ment following passage of workers’ bill
Year National income Salaries and wages (exclusive of (exclusive of

--mm---oco 1935. oco

National income, 1929-32; national income, 1933; Survey Current Business,

Ratio of salaries and wages to income produced 1931


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 688

. 1933 1934 (estimate) _______________________ - ___________________________ . 60 Total insurance benefits payable (annually) under workers’ bill (p. 2, ______________________________ 3, 875, 000, 000 Present expenditures for relief, old age, _________________ Increase in purchasing power of lower income classes upon . passage of workers’ bill ________________________________ 12, Increase in annual demand for consumers’ goods (100 percent assumed) (see Brookings Institute, “America’s Capacity to Consume”, p. S4) _____________________________________ 12, Increase in annual wages and salaries to meet increased demand for goods (decrease in cost of unemployment insur­ ance) (60 percent of (ratio of salaries and wages to income produced, 1934, above) - __________





H. R. 2827 is unquestionably constitutional.

This bill provides for the appropriation of Federal moneys out of the Treasury of the United States for the payment of compensation to the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, and the aged. It is thus simply an exercise of the appro­ priating power, the power of Congress to spend money. The bill does, indeed, do more than provide for appropriations; it provides for the setting up of adminis­ trative machinery. But the appropriating power of Congress necessarily carries with it the incidental power to provide administrative machinery for disbursing the moneys appropriated and for insuring their proper application to the purposes sought to be achieved by Congress.1 What limitations are there on the power of Congress to appropriate Federal moneys? The Federal Government is a government of “enumerated” powers; that is, powers enumerated by the Constitution. Some constitutional lawyers have, therefore, argued, when it has suited their client’s purpose, that Congress may only expend moneys for the execution of the enumerated powers. Upon some such argument, an appropriation for social insurance would be unconstitu­ tional, since the Constitution does not enumerate power to provide social insurance for the people of the United States. The argument is, however, wholly unsound, for it ignores the fact that one of the enumerated powers set forth in the Constitution is the power to “lay and collect taxes, pay debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States”.2 To limit this power to spend moneys for the to the power to spend moneys for the execution of the other general welfare enumerated powers, is to rob the “general welfare” clause of its meaning and thus to violate an elementary principle of constitutional construction.3 Such constitutional authorities as Washington,4 Madison,5 Calhoun,8 and Justice have repudiated the conception of an appropriating power limited by the other powers. Our highest authority, the United States Supreme Court, has in the famous Sugar Bounty definitely upheld appropriations by the Government in payment of purely moral obliga­ tions, entirely beyond the scope of the other enumerated powers and has, indeed, held that an appropriation out of considerations of pure charity cannot be reviewed by the judicial branch of the Government. Congress has uniformly and consistently exercised its appropriating power for any purpose which it deems for the general welfare and irrespective of whether the purpose came within the specifically enumerated powers or not,. Consider the appropriations which Congress has made. Congress has spent money for the purchase of Louisiana from France, of Alaska from Russia, of Florida from Spain; Congress has made outright gifts of millions of dollars to the and individual States; it has appropriated billions of dollars for for internal it has appropriated the moneys of the Nation to aid destitute foreigners in severe calamities, as in the case of the Santa Domingo in and the citizens of Venezuela, who suffered an earthquake in it has in the last 2 years, appropriated billions of dollars for emergency relief to
The Constitution of the United States, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1 and cl. 18; Willoughby on the Constitution of United States, ch. 3, sec. 62, 105. Constitution, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1. Chief Justice Taney in v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 538, 570, 571; Story Commentaries on the Constitu­ tion, 5th ed., sec. 812, 913. Story on the Constitution, 5th ed.; note to sec. 978. The Federalist, p. 41; Richardson, Messages and Papers of the President, vol. 2, 485, 368. Annals of Congress, Cong., 1st sess., vol. 2, p. 1839; Richardson op. vol. 2, 165. 7 Hamilton’s Works, Lodge’s edition, vol. 3, 294, 371, 372. Eliot’s Debates, 2d ed., vol. 2, 431, note. Story on the Constitution, vol. 1, 922 to 924; see also Pomeroy to Constitutional Law, 274, 275; Hare, American Constitutional Law, p. 155; Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, sec. 269; on the American Constitution, sec. 77. v. Realty Co., 164 U. S. 427. S. v. Co., supra, In 1837 Congress, finding that there was a surplus, appropriated to be paid to the individual States in proportion to their population; Congress made a appropriation of this nature in Federal Land Grants to the States, pp. 37, and 67, the acts establishing the Bureau of Animal Husbandry, Bureau, Bureau of Plant and Industry, Forest Service, Bureau of Soils, Bureau of Survey, Bureau of Crop Estimates, etc. The Survey, Bureau of Mines, Department of Education, Road Building. Act of Feb. 12, 1794, ch. 2. The act of May ch. 79; 4 Eliot’s Debates, 240



“needy and distressed it has appropriated billions for the setting up of a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Home Owners’ Loan and the Federal Housing Corporation.20 None of the enumerated powers would justify these (purchase of Florida from Spain, Alaska from Russia) espenditures. Yet surely no one would presume to say that Congress exceeded its power in making the Louisiana purchase, or in setting up the Geological Survey, which has the natural resources, or that Congress should never have contributed to the country’s educational needs. It is thus entirely clear that wholly without regard to the enumerated powers, Congress may use Federal moneys for any purpose which it deems will accom­ Surely it could not be said that a bill which will plish the general welfare provide a system of unemployment and social insurance for millions of unem­ ployed, sick, disabled, and aged, is less for the “general welfare” than any of the bills which have just been mentioned. If Congress passes the bill, it will thereby declare that, in its judgment, the bill is for the “general welfare” and no court has the power its judgment on this question for that of Congress. The fact is that the Supreme Court has itself stated that it has never in its entire existence, attempted to set limitations to the power of Congress to appro­ priate On the contrary, the Supreme Court has explicitly declared that the exercise of the appropriating power is not a subject for judicial The Supreme Court has appreciated that if individual taxpayers were permitted to harass and obstruct the Federal Government with questions as to the propriety of national expenditures, that this would render unworkable the whole machinery of the Federal Government. There is a case in which a taxpayer tried to stop the Secretary of the Treasury from paying out moneys for the construction of the Panama Canal.23 The United States Supreme Court declared that the taxpayer could not interfere. The Court pointed out that the taxpayer could not show any “direct injury”, since he could not point to any property belonging to him which was directly affected by the way the Federal Government spent its money. After all, the money in the United States Treasury appropriated, might very well be interest on the foreign debts or the proceeds of the sale of Government property and no taxpayer could point to any specific tax or any specific moneys paid by him which was used for the appropriation in question. The United States Supreme Court, however, went further than this technical argument with respect to the matter of “direct injury.” The Court declared explicitly that the question of the purpose for which Congress may use moneys, is a legislative question, not a judicial one. Thus, the United States Supreme Court has deemed itself to be without power to pass upon the propriety of the exercise by Congress of its appropriating Clearly, the bill is not merely a wholly constitutional exercise of the appro­ priating power, but there is no way by which the propriety of the exercise of the appropriating power can be questioned.

While the bill does indeed invest the Secretary of Labor with large discretion, this does not render the bill unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has, again and again, sustained delegations of power to the President, Cabinet officers, and commissions. The Court has recognized that Congress might very well find it impossible to do more than to “lay down an intelligible principle to The which the person or body administering the bill is directed to conform.” Court has appreciated the practical difficulty of fixing precise and definite standards in advance of the complex contingencies certain to arise and has recognized that Congress might “form the necessities of the case, be compelled to leave to the executive officers, the duty -of bringing about the result pointed Thus, the Tariff Act of 1922 was held constitutional, out by the statute.”
Emergency Relief and Act, 1932, 47 Stat. 709, July 21, 1932, c. 520. Jan. 1932, c. 8, 47 Stat. 5.
June 13, 1933, c. 64, 48 Stat. 128.
National Housing Act, No. 479, 73d Congress, approved by President, June 27, 1934.
Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, in Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, S. v. Realty Co., and
Mass. v. Mellon, supra, the Supreme Court refused to pass on the question of the propriety of the exercise
of the appropriating powers.
Mass. v. Mellon, supra.

Wilson v. 204 U. 24. Mass. v. Mellon, Wilson v. Shaw, S. v. Hampden v. S., 276 S. 394. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 496.

Co., supra.



although it vested the President with the power to raise or lower the tariff upon any imported article whenever it found that the American products were at a competitive disadvantage with those imported from abroad.27 A much broader power was held to have been constitutionally delegated to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, which authorized the Commissioner to adjust the rate of excess-profits tax.28 Again an act of Congress, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury, on the recommendation of experts, the power to fix and establish standards of purity, quality, and fitness for consumption of certain commodities imported into the United States, was held In the recent hot oil” case the United States Supreme Court has, it is true, declared that the “hot oil” control of the N. R. A. was invalid as an un­ constitutional delegation of legislative power. But, in that case, no “primary purpose” or “primary standard” was clearly stated. The legislation there con­ sidered is wholly distinguishable from this bill for here a primary purpose is stated, and it is clear that the Secretary of Labor is not invested by this bill with anything more than a properly constitutional “administrative discretion”. Indeed, the discretion invested in the Secretary of Labor is narrow, for the beneficiaries who are to receive the compensation are named, the minimum compensation is prescribed, the maximum compensation is ascertainable, and the nature of the compensation is fixed. Certainly the discretion here vested in the Secretary of Labor is far less wide than that vested in the Secretary of Agriculture by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of In the latter bill, the Secretary of Agri­ culture was granted the power “to provide for rental or benefit payments in con­ nection with crop-reduction in such amounts as the Secretary deems fair and reasonable.” The Congress which found no difficulty in regarding the Agricul­ tural Adjustment Act as a constitutionally proper delegation of power, can cer­ tainly find no constitutional difficulty on this score with this bill.

No specific amount is appropriated by this bill. But this does not render the bill unconstitutional. For general indefinite appropriations are common. The first of such general indefinite appropriations was passed when Congress directed that all expenses accruing and necessary for the maintenance of lighthouses should be paid out of the of the United States. Since then hundreds of statutes containing similar indefinite appropriations, have been passed. From the mo­ ment the bill is enacted, this general appropriation becomes a charge upon the Treasury of the United States. When it is determined that any individual is entitled to a certain amount of compensation, his claim is a claim on the United States, to be honored by the Treasury just as any matured bond or other obligation of the United States must be honored. Like all other matured claims on the United States, these claims for compensation when fixed, must be provided for as a part of the Budget of the Federal Government.

Unlike all other unemployment and social insurance plans, this bill does not involve the setting up of “reserves” created by enforced contributions by em­ ployers or employees. The only way that any person could regard himself as in anywise deprived of property for the purpose of financing this bill, would be by regarding this bill as a taxing measure. The bill provides that “it is the sense of Congress that if any further taxation is necessary to provide funds for the purposes of this act, it shall be levied on inheritances, gifts, and individual and corporation incomes of $5,000 a year or over.” Even if it can be argued that this is a taxing measure, the bill is a proper exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress has the power under the Constitution, to lay taxes for the “general welfare”, subject only to two
Co., U. S. 502. supra. The “hot oil” decision, Sup. Ct. Rept. but see Carpenter on the “Constitutionality of the N. R. A.“, Southern California Law Review, Jan. 1934, p. 125; Cheadle on the “Delegation of Legislative Function”, 27 Yale Law Journal, 892. 31 May 12, 1933, c. 25, 48 Stat. 31. Act of Aug. 7, 1789, c. 9, 1 Stat. 53. Introduction to hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations on H. Congress, 2d session.

v. Dtamond v.


S., supra.



In the case of duties, imports and excises, “this must be uniform.” In the case of direct taxes, they must be apportioned according to the census. Neither limitation, however, applies to incomes, gifts, or inheritances since the sixteenth amendment Thus, a tax levied by Congress on incomes, inheritances and gifts, is wholly proper, so long as Congress deems it to be for the “general welfare.” Once Congress has levied such a tax, the tax cannot be assailed by any tax payer, since the courts will not review the exercise of the Congressional discretion involved. The decision of Congress is thus final.36 The limitation on the taxing power of the States, “that the taxation must be for a public purpose”, is not a limitation applicable to the Federal Government.37 But even if it were, clearly the purposes for which funds are to be raised by tax­ ation, and to be spent under this bill, is a “public purpose.” The fact that private individuals benefit, does not alter the fact that it is to the public interest that these private individuals receive such public benefit.38 Finally, what is or is not a “public use” or purpose, has been held by the United States Supreme Court to be a question concerning which the legislative authority is best able to Just as in the case of the exercise of the appropriating power, so in the case of the exercise of the taxing power, where the tax is levied on incomes, inheritances and gifts, the tax payer is wholly without remedy. When Congress determines that such a tax is for the “general welfare”, its decision is final and cannot be constitutionally assailed.

It has been argued that this bill is unconstitutional on the ground that it involves a usurpation of the rights of the States. This argument is based upon the proposition that the power of Congress to regulate commerce and industry is limited to the “interstate commerce power” and that any regulation by the Federal Government of intrastate business and of “not commerce”, is unconstitutional. This argument is wholly inapplicable to the present bill. For this bill is not an exercise of the interstate commerce power; it is an exercise of the appropriating power. This bill does not involve any regulation of intrastate commerce or of matters “not commerce.“. It does not involve the setting up of “reserves”; it does not set up such business relationships as might possibly be involved in the creation of special accounts with employers or employees, based on their contributions to a reserve fund. The bill in no wise interferes with the conduct of anv intrastate business. It does not prohibit the transportation of any product business such as was held invalid in the child labor case. The bill does not affect the liability of employers to employees in intrastate business such as was held invalid in the employers’ liability The bill simply sets up an obligation of the United States Government to pay to all who are unemployed, sick, out of the United States Treasury disabled, or aged, and it provides for the governmental machinery for the proper disbursement of the compensation. The Supreme Court has explicitly declared complain that the Federal Government is invading that no State will be State rights when it simply exercises its appropriating Even if, however, this exercise of the appropriating power, should, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as a regulation of matters “not commerce” and of intrastate commerce, it does not follow that the plan is beyond the powers of Congress. For it is the present doctrine of the United States Supreme Court that Congress has the power to regulate intrastate commerce and matters that are not commerce at all, provided the burdensome character of these activities on interstate commerce is clear and direct.*” Thus the United States
v. S., 3 171; v. Farm Land Trust Co., U. S. 601. Congress shall have to lay end collect taxes on The 16th amendment reads as follows: incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” 36 Pacific Co. v. 7 Wall. 433. Billings v. S., U. S. 261. Bank v. 219 U. S. 104; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112; V. earner, 239 U. S. 244. 39 Greene v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 232. Child Labor case, 247 S. 251.

First Employers Liability

v. Mellon, supra. Safety Appliance Act, case 222 U. S. 20; Wisconsin R. R. Corn. v. C. R. R. Co., 257 U. S. 553; v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 485; Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 U. S. 1; Colorado v. 271 U. S. 153.


S. 462.



Supreme Court has held the Packers and Stock Yard Act of 1921 constitutional, although that act gave the Secretary of Agriculture supervision over the sion’men and livestock dealers in the stockyards of the Nation and enabled the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate prices and practices in matters wholly The Court appreciated that the object of the act was to “free and unburden” the flow of interstate commerce. Again, in another case, the passen­ ger rates of a branch line of a railroad, wholly within the boundaries of a single State and physically detached from the interstate lines of the same railroad, were held constitutionally subject to the control of the Interstate Commerce Commis­ sion, by reason of the effect of the rates on interstate rates and interstate business.4” The Court has again and again regarded similar acts as a proper exercise of the “interstate commerce Certainly, it must be clear, that Congress in 1933 and 1934 has proceeded’ upon the constitutional theory that it lies within the province of the Federal Government to prevent practices which deter the free flow of interstate com­ merce and to promote practices which stimulate interstate The Congress which passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, declared that the loss of the purchasing power of the farmers endangered the entire economic structure of the Nation.48 The mechanism set up by that act was conceived as a device to restore purchasing power. Certainly the workers’ bill is similarly an effort to remove obstacles to the free flow of interstate commerce. Clearly it provides for the “general welfare” much more directly than the N. R. A., the A. A. A., P. A., and the other emergency acts which Congress has enacted during the Roosevelt administration. This bill is an effort to deal with the same problem, the crisis in the purchasing power of the people of the United States. The basic conception of this bill is that the millions of workers and farmers the United States who are unemployed, sick, disabled, and aged, lack purchasing power and that the soundest way to restore that purchasing power is to give them money, but not to give them money by way of charity or relief, but to give them money as of right, as a compensation for a disability which they suffer, due to no fault of their own and due to the operation of forces. The basic idea of this bill thus is that funds should be given to create purchasing power for the masses who must spend the money for the necessities of life and who, in spending the money for these necessities, will thereby remove obstructions to the free flow of interstate commerce. Furthermore, a consideration of the advantages of the Federal as against State or Federal-State social-insurance systems, will show the “administrative necessity” of a Federal system. The vast growth of American industry spanning the entire continent and the development of a national economy that is interconnected and interdependent, has completely transformed the Nation which was the subject of the Constitution. For most purposes of business and commerce, State boundaries have ceased to exist. The existence of 48 governmental systems endeavoring to solve problems essentially national in scope in 48 different ways, has created stupendous contradictions and difficulties. The lack of pur­ chasing power of the unemployed, sick, disabled, and aged is a national phenom­ enon, national in scope; its causes are bound up with the causes of the national economic crisis. Finally, the Federal system is the only feasible one, because it is only the Nation which can deal with the problem as it must be dealt with. The problem of unemployment is a problem of mass unemployment, with millions out of work. The loss in purchasing power of the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, and the aged, runs into billions of dollars. Only the Federal Government, with its vast resources and imponderable taxing power, can provide the means to meet a problem of such magnitude. Many of the States simply do not have adequate financial resources or adequate taxing power, but their unemployed need com­ pensation no less than the unemployed of the wealthier States. And it is equitable that the wealthier States should contribute to the support and mainte­ nance of the human beings in the poorer States, from which the income may very well have been withdrawn. The incomes and inheritances earned or created by Nation-wide industry are, as a practical matter, largely beyond the taxing power of any but the one State where the income is received, or in the case of inheritances,
v. Wallace, supra.
S., supra.
Cases cited under note 43.
See Declaration of Policy, National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933, c. 90, 48 Stat. 195.
See Declaration of Policy, National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933, c. 90, 48 Stat. 195.

Colorado v.



where the deceased had his home at the time of his death. Only the Federal Government can effectively distribute the burden, because only it can effectively reach incomes and inheritances and make them available for the people of all States. We must remember that the bill here considered does not depend for its con­ stitutionality on any consideration of the interstate commerce power upon the argument that the regulation of intrastate business is necessary because of its effect on interstate business. In this respect, this bill rests on a far sounder con­ stitutional basis than do the N. R. A. and the A. A. A. Those acts stand or fall, depending upon the extent to which the interstate commerce power can be prop­ erly exercised. this bill is merely an exercise of the appropriating power. It rests upon the same constitutional basis as do the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act and Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Act, which involve merely an exercise of the power of Congress to spend Federal moneys. The Finance Corporation Act, the Home Owners’ Loan Cor­ poration Act, and, indeed, the bulk of the national emergency legislation which has been enacted during the Hoover and Rooseveit administrations, involve an understanding of the national character of our problems: Furthermore, they indicate an appreciation of the inadequacy and the cumbersomeness of the Federal subsidy system. These acts all provide for direct aid to persons, firms, and cor­ porations in the States. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation supplies Federal moneys direct to bankers throughout the country. The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation supplies Federal moneys direct to mort­ gagees throughout the country. There is no sensible reason why the congres­ sional understanding of the national character of our economic problems, equal to the task of applying this understanding to bankers and mortgagees throughout the country, should fail to apply it to these who are neither bankers nor mortgagees. Bankers relief and mortgagees’ relief have all been envisaged as Federal problems, requiring Federal solution. The unemployment and social insurance problems are even more clearly Federal problems. They require a similar national solution. The Congress which passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, apparently, was convinced that it was for the “general welfare”, that the banks in this country should be given money out of the Treasury of the United States, so that banks could stay in business. The Congress which passed the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Act, apparently, was convinced that it was for the that individuals and corporations owning mortgages affecting general welfare real estate, who were totally unable to liquidate them, should be given bonds of the United States in payment for their mortgages. When Congress passes this bill, it will at last have realized that it is for the “general welfare” that all human beings in the United States who, through no fault of their own, are unable to earn the necessities of life, should receive money so that they may purchase the necessities of life and, in so doing, maintain not only their very lives, but the economical life of this country. The bill, in view of the foregoing considerations is clearly


The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Weinstock.
Mr. DAVID GORDON. I am appearing in behalf of Mr. Weinstock.


Mr. GORDON. am representing the organization of Mr. Weinstock. I represent the American Federation of Labor trade-union committee. I am the secretary of the New York Federation of Labor trade-union insurance of my committee. I represent the wish for own local union, Local of the A. F. of L. To those who question our authority, we need say but one word. The movement of the A. F. of L. trade-union committee of the United States is the one which has focused the attention of the membership towards genuine unemployment insurance against such quack as the Wagner-Lewis bill, one sponsored by the A. of L. chiefs. The support that our resolutions and motions received in